CONTEMPORARY 

AMERICAN    HISTORY 

1877-1913 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

NEW  YORK  •    BOSTON   -    CHICAGO  •    DALLAS 
ATLANTA   •    SAN   FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  LIMITED 

LONDON  •    BOMBAY  •    CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO.  OF  CANADA,  LTD. 

TORONTO 


,  CONTEMPORARY 

AMERICAN  HISTORY- 

•  1877-1913  . 


BY 

CHARLES   A.   BEARD 

ASSOCIATE  PROFESSOR  Otf   POLITICS  IN 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


gorfe 

THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY 
1914 

All  rights  reserved 


COPYRIGHT,  1914, 
BY  THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY. 


Set  up  and  electrotyped.    Published  February ,  1914. 

HISTORN 


J.  S.  Gushing  Co.  —  Berwick  &  Smith  Co. 
Norwood,  Mass.,  U.S.A. 


PREFACE 

IN  teaching  American  government  and  politics,  I 
constantly  meet  large  numbers  of  students  who  have 
no  knowledge  of  the  most  elementary  facts  of  Ameri 
can  history  since  the  Civil  War.  When  they  are  taken 
to  task  for  their  neglect,  they  reply  that  there  is  no 
textbook  dealing  with  the  period,  and  that  the  smaller 
histories  are  sadly  deficient  in  their  treatment  of  our  age. 

It  is  to  supply  the  student  and  general  reader  with  a 
handy  guide  to  contemporary  history  that  I  have  under 
taken  this  volume.  I  have  made  no  attempt  to  present 
an  "  artistically  balanced  "  account  of  the  last  thirty-five 
years,  but  have  sought  rather  to  furnish  a  background 
for  the  leading  issues  of  current  politics  and  to  enlist 
the  interest  of  the  student  in  the  history  of  the  most 
wonderful  period  in  American  development.  The  book 
is  necessarily  somewhat  "  impressionistic  "  and  in  part 
it  is  based  upon  materials  which  have  not  been  ade 
quately  sifted  and  evaluated.  Nevertheless,  I  have 
endeavored  to  be  accurate  and  fair,  and  at  the  same 
time  to  invite  on  the  part  of  the  student  some  of  that 
free  play  of  the  mind  which  Matthew  Arnold  has  shown 
to  be  so  helpful  in  literary  criticism. 

Although  the  volume  has  been  designed,  in  a  way,  as 
a  textbook,  I  have  thrown  aside  the  methods  of  the 
almanac  and  chronicle,  and,  at  the  risk  of  displeasing 
the  reader  who  expects  a  little  about  everything  (includ 
ing  the  Sioux  war  and  the  San  Francisco  earthquake), 


800039 


vi  PREFACE 

I  have  omitted  with  a  light  heart  many  of  the  staples 
of  history  in  order  to  treat  more  fully  the  matters  which 
seem  important  from  the  modern  point  of  view.  I  have 
also  refused  to  mar  the  pages  with  black  type,  para 
graph  numbers,  and  other  "  apparatus  "  which  tradition 
has  prescribed  for  "manuals."  Detailed  election  sta 
tistics  and  the  guide  to  additional  reading  I  have  placed 
in  an  appendix. 

In  the  preparation  of  the  book,  I  have  made  exten 
sive  use  of  the  volumes  by  Professors  Dunning,  Sparks, 
Dewey,  and  Latane,  in  the  American  Nation  Series, 
and  I  wish  to  acknowledge  once  for  all  my  deep  debt 
to  them.  My  colleague,  Mr.  B.  B.  Kendrick,  read  all 
of  the  proofs  and  saved  me  from  many  an  error.  Pro 
fessor  R.  L.  Schuyler  gave  me  the  benefit  of  his  criti 
cisms  on  part  of  the  proof.  To  Dr.  Louis  A.  Mayers, 
of  the  College  of  the  City  of  New  York,  I  am  under 
special  obligations  for  valuable  suggestions  as  to  ar 
rangement  and  for  drafting  a  large  portion  of  Chapter 
III.  The  shortcomings  of  the  book  fall  to  me,  but  I 
shall  be  recompensed  for  my  indiscretions,  if  this  vol 
ume  is  speedily  followed  by  a  number  of  texts,  large 
and  small,  dealing  with  American  history  since  the 
Civil  War.  It  is  showing  no  disrespect  to  our  ances 
tors  to  be  as  much  interested  in  our  age  as  they  were 
in  theirs ;  and  the  doctrine  that  we  can  know  more 
about  Andrew  Jackson  whom  we  have  not  seen  than 
about  Theodore  Roosevelt  whom  we  have  seen  is  a 
pernicious  psychological  error. 

CHARLES. A.    BEARD. 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY, 
November,  1913. 


TABLE    OF   CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.    THE  RESTORATION  OF  WHITE   DOMINION   IN   THE 

SOUTH i 

II.    THE  ECONOMIC  REVOLUTION 27 

III.  THE  REVOLUTION  IN  POLITICS  AND  LAW          .        .  50 

IV.  PARTIES  AND  PARTY  ISSUES,  1877-1896    ...  90 
V.     Two  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION,  1877-1896  117 

VI.    THE  GROWTH  OF  DISSENT 143 

VII.    THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1896 16^. 

VIII.     IMPERIALISM 199 

IX.    THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  CAPITALISM  ....  229 

X.    THE  ADMINISTRATIONS  OF  THEODORE  ROOSEVELT  .  254 

XI.     THE  REVIVAL  OF  DISSENT 283 

XII.    MR.  TAFT  AND  REPUBLICAN  DISINTEGRATION.        .  317 

XIII.    THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1912 344 

APPENDIX .        .382 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 383 

INDEX 391 


vii 


CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

CHAPTER  I 

THE  RESTORATION  OF  WHITE  DOMINION  IN  THE  SOUTH 

WHEN  President  Hayes  was  inaugurated  on  March  4, 
1877,  the  southern  whites  had  almost  shaken  off  the 
Republican  rule  which  had  been  set  up  under  the  pro 
tection  of  Federal  soldiers  at  the  close  of  the  Civil  War. 
In  only  two  states,  Louisiana  and  South  Carolina,  were 
Republican  governors  nominally  in  power,  and  these 
last  " rulers  of  conquered  provinces"  had  only  a  weak 
grip  upon  their  offices,  which  they  could  not  have 
maintained  for  a  moment  without  the  aid  of  Union 
troops  stationed  at  their  capitals.  By  secret  societies, 
like  the  Ku  Klux  Klan,  and  by  open  intimidation,  the 
conservative  whites  had  practically  recovered  from  the 
negroes,  whom  the  Republicans  had  enfranchised,  the 
political  power  which  had  been  wrested  from  the  old 
ruling  class  at  the  close  of  the  War.  In  this  nullifica 
tion  of  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  to  the  Federal  Con 
stitution  and  other  measures  designed  to  secure  the  suf 
frage  for  the  former  bondmen,  President  Grant  had 
acquiesced,  and  it  was  openly  rumored  that  Hayes 
would  put  an  end  to  the  military  regime  in  Louisiana 
and  South  Carolina,  leaving  the  southern  people  to  fight 
out  their  own  battles. 


AMERICAN  HISTORY 

Nevertheless,  the  Republicans  in  the  North  were 
apparently  loath  to  accept  accomplished  facts.  In  their 
platform  of  1876,  upon  which  Hayes  was  elected,  they 
recalled  with  pride  their  achievement  in  saving  the  Union 
and  purging  the  land  of  slavery ;  they  pledged  themselves 
to  pacify  the  South  and  protect  the  rights  of  all  citizens 
there ;  they  pronounced  it  to  be  a  solemn  obligation  upon 
the  Federal  government  to  enforce  the  Civil  War 
amendments  and  to  secure  "to  every  citizen  complete 
liberty  and  exact  equality  in  the  exercise  of  all  civil, 
political,  and  public  rights."  Moreover,  they  charged 
the  Democratic  party  with  being  "the  same  in  character 
and  spirit  as  when  it  sympathized  with  treason." 

But  this  vehement  declaration  was  only  the  death 
cry  of  the  gladiators  of  the  radical  Republican  school. 
Stevens  and  Sumner,  who  championed  the  claims  of 
the  negroes  to  full  civil  and  political  rights,  were  gone ; 
and  the  new  leaders,  like  Conkling  and  Elaine,  although 
they  still  waxed  eloquent  over  the  wrongs  of  the  freed- 
men,  were  more  concerned  about  the  forward  swing  of 
railway  and  capitalist  enterprises  in  the  North  and  West 
than  they  were  about  maintaining  in  the  South  the  rule 
of  a  handful  of  white  Republicans  supported  by  negro 
voters.  Only  a  few  of  the  old-school  Republicans  who 
firmly  believed  in  the  doctrine  of  the  "natural  rights" 
of  the  negro,  and  the  officeholders  and  speculators  who 
were  anxious  to  exploit  the  South  really  in  their  hearts 
supported  a  continuance  of  the  military  rule  in  "the 
conquered  provinces." 

Moreover,  there  were  special  circumstances  which 
made  it  improbable  that  President  Hayes  would  permit 


THE  RESTORATION  OF  WHITE   DOMINION    3 

the  further  use  of  troops  in  Louisiana  and  South  Caro 
lina.  His  election  had  been  stoutly  disputed  and  it  was 
only  a  stroke  of  good  fortune  that  permitted  his  inaugura 
tion  at  all.  It  was  openly  charged  that  his  managers, 
during  the  contest  over  the  results  of  the  election  in 
1876,  had  promised  the  abolition  of  the  military  regime 
in  the  South  in  return  for  aid  on  the  part  of  certain  Demo 
crats  in  securing  a  settlement  of  the  dispute  in  his  favor. 
Hayes  himself  had,  however,  maintained  consistently 
that  vague  attitude  so  characteristic  of  practical  poli 
ticians.  In  his  speech  of  acceptance,  he  promised  to 
help  the  southern  states  to  obtain  "the  blessings  of 
honest  and  capable  self-government."  But  he  added 
also  that  the  advancement  of  the  prosperity  of  those 
states  could  be  made  most  effectually  by  "a  hearty 
and  generous  recognition  of  the  rights  of  all  by  all." 
Moreover,  he  approved  a  statement  by  one  of  his  sup 
porters  to  the  effect  that  he  would  restore  all  freemen 
to  their  rights  as  citizens  and  at  the  same  time  obliterate 
sectional  lines — a  promise  obviously  impossible  to  fulfill. 
Whether  there  was  any  real  "bargain"  between 
Hayes  and  the  Democratic  managers  matters  little,  for 
the  policy  which  he  adopted  was  inevitable,  sooner  or 
later,  because  there  was  no  active  political  support 
even  in  the  North  for  a  contrary  policy.  A  few  weeks 
after  his  inauguration  Hayes  sent  a  commission  of  emi 
nent  men  to  Louisiana  to  investigate  the  claims  of  the 
rival  governments  there  —  for  there  were  two  legisla 
tures  and  two  governors  in  that  commonwealth  contend 
ing  for  power.  The  commission  found  that  the  Repub 
lican  administration,  headed  by  Governor  Packard, 


4         CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

was  little  more  than  a  sham,  and  advised  President  Hayes 
of  the  fact.  Thereupon  the  President,  on  April  9,  1877, 
ordered  the  withdrawal  of  the  Federal  troops  from  the 
public  buildings,  and  Louisiana  began  the  restoration  of 
her  shattered  fortunes  under  the  conservative  white 
leadership.  A  day  later,  the  President  also  withdrew 
the  troops  from  the  capitol  at  Columbia,  South  Caro 
lina,  and  the  Democratic  administration  under  Gov 
ernor  Wade  Hampton,  a  former  Confederate  veteran,  was 
duly  recognized.  Henceforward,  the  freedmen  of  the 
South  were  to  depend  upon  the  generosity  of  the  whites 
and  upon  their  own  collective  efforts,  aided  by  their 
sympathizers,  for  whatever  civil  and  political  rights  they 
were  permitted  to  enjoy. 

The  Disfranchisement  of  the  Negro 

Having  secured  the  abolition  of  direct  Federal  mili 
tary  interference  with  state  administrations  in  the  South, 
the  Democrats  turned  to  the  abrogation  of  the  Federal 
,  election  laws  that  had  been  passed  in  1870-1871,  as  a  part 
fof  the  regular  reconstruction  policy  for  protecting  the 
negroes  in  the  exercise  of  the  suffrage.     These  election 
laws  prescribed  penalties  for  intimidation  at  the  polls, 
provided  for  the  appointment,  by  Federal  circuit  courts, 
of  supervisors  charged  with  the  duty  of  scrutinizing  the 
entire  election  process,  and  authorized  the  employment 
of  United  States  marshals,  deputies,  and  soldiers  to  sup 
port  and  protect  the  supervisors  in  the  discharge  of  their 
duties  and  to  keep  the  peace  at  the  polls. 
These  laws,  the  Republican  authors  urged,  were  de- 


THE  RESTORATION  OF  WHITE  DOMINION     5 

signed  to  safeguard  the  purity  of  the  ballot,  not  only  in 
the  South  but  also  in  the  North,  and  particularly  in  New 
York,  where  it  was  claimed  that  fraud  was  regularly 
employed  by  the  Democratic  leaders.  John  Sherman 
declared  that  the  Democrats  in  Congress  would  be  a 
"  pitiful  minority,  if  those  elected  by  fraud  and  bloodshed 
were  debarred,"  adding  that,  "in  the  South  one  million 
Republicans  are  disfranchised."  Democrats,  on  the 
other  hand,  replied  that  these  laws  were  nothing  more 
than  a  part  of  a  gigantic  scheme  originated  by  the  Re 
publicans  to  fasten  their  rule  upon  the  country  forever 
by  systematic  interference  with  elections.  Democratic 
suspicions  were  strengthened  by  reports  of  many  scandals 
—  for  instance,  that  the  supervisors  in  Louisiana  under 
the  Republican  regime  had  registered  "  eight  thousand 
more  colored  voters  than  there  were  in  the  state  when 
the  census  was  taken  four  years  later."  Undoubtedly, 
there  were  plenty  of  frauds  on  both  sides,  and  it  is  an 
open  question  whether  Federal  interference  reduced  or 
increased  the  amount. 

At  all  events,  the  Democrats,  finding  themselves  in 
a  majority  in  the  House  of  Representatives  in  1877, 
determined  to  secure  the  repeal  of  the  " force  laws," 
and  in  their  desperation  they  resorted  to  the  practice  of 
attaching  their  repeal  measures  to  appropriation  bills 
in  the  hope  of  compelling  President  Hayes  to  sign 
them  or  tying  up  the  wheels  of  government  by  a  stoppage 
in  finances.  Hayes  was  equal  to  the  occasion,  and  by  a 
vigorous  use  of  the  veto  power  he  defeated  the  direct 
assaults  of  the  Democrats  on  the  election  laws.  At 
length,  however,  in  June,  1878,  he  was  compelled  to 


6         CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

accept  a  "rider"  in  the  form  of  a  proviso  to  the  annual 
appropriation  bill  for  the  army  making  it  impossible 
for  United  States  marshals  to  employ  federal  troops  in 
the  execution  of  the  election  laws.  While  this  did  not 
satisfy  the  Democrats  by  any  means,  because  it  still 
left  Federal  supervision  under  the  marshals,  their  depu 
ties  and  the  election  supervisors,  it  took  away  the  main 
prop  of  the  Republicans  in  the  South  —  the  use  of  troops 
at  elections. 

The  effect  of  this  achievement  on  the  part  of  the  Demo 
crats  was  apparent  in  the  succeeding  congressional 
election,  for  they  were  able  to  carry  all  of  the  southern 
districts  except  four.  This  cannot  be  attributed,  how 
ever,  entirely  to  the  suppression  of  the  negro  vote,  for 
there  was  a  general  landslide  in  1878  which  gave  the 
Democrats  a  substantial  majority  in  both  the  House 
and  the  Senate.  Inasmuch  as  a  spirit  of  toleration 
was  growing  up  in  Congress,  the  clause  of  the  Four 
teenth  Amendment  excluding  from  Congress  certain 
persons  formerly  connected  with  the  Confederacy, 
was  not  strictly  enforced,  and  several  of  the  most  promi 
nent  and  active  representatives  of  the  old  regime  found 
their  way  into  both  houses.  Under  their  vigorous  leader 
ship  a  two  years'  political  war  was  waged  between 
Congress  and  the  President  over  the  repeal  of  the  force 
bills,  but  Hayes  won  the  day,  because  the  Democrats 
could  not  secure  the  requisite  two-thirds  vote  to  carry 
their  measures  against  the  presidential  veto. 

However,  the  Supreme  Court  had  been  under 
mining  the  "force  laws"  by  nullifying  separate 
sections,  although  it  upheld  the  general  principle  of 


THE  RESTORATION  OF  WHITE  DOMINION     7 

the  election  laws  against  a  contention  that  elections  were 
wholly  within  the  control  of  state  authorities.  In  the 
case  of  United  States  p.JReese,  the  Court,  in  1875,  declared 
void  two  sections  of  the  law  of  1870  "  because  they  did 
not  strictly  limit  Federal  jurisdiction  for  protection  of 
the  right  to  vote  to  cases  where  the  right  was  denied 
by  a  state"  but  extended  it  to  denials  by  private  parties. 
In  the  same  year  in  the  case  of  United  States  v.  Cruik- 
shank  the  Court  gave  another  blow  to  Federal  control, 
in  the  South.  A  number  of  private  citizens  in  Louisiana 
had  waged  war  on  the  blacks  at  an  election  riot,  and  one 
of  them,  Cruikshank,  was  charged  with  conspiracy  to 
deprive  negroes  of  rights  which  they  enjoyed  under  the 
protection  of  the  United  States.  The  Supreme  Court, 
however,  held  that  the  Federal  government  had  no 
authority  to  protect  the  citizens  of  a  state  against  one 
another,  but  that  such  protection  was,  as  always,  a  duty 
of  the  state  itself.  Seven  years  later  the  Supreme  Court, 
in  the  case  of  United  States  v.  Harris,  declared  null  that 
part  of  the  enforcement  laws  which  penalized  conspiracies 
of  two  or  more  citizens  to  deprive  another  of  his  rights, 
on  the  same  ground  as  advanced  in  the  Louisiana  case.1 
On  the  withdrawal  of  Federal  troops  and  the  open 
abandonment  of  the  policy  of  military  coercion,  the 
whites,  seeing  that  the  Federal  courts  were  not  inclined 
to  interfere,  quickly  completed  the  process  of  obtaining 
control  over  the  machinery  of  state  government.  That 
process  had  been  begun  shortly  after  the  War,  taking 

1  In  1894  the  Democrats  during   Cleveland's   administration  com 
pleted  the  demolition  of  the  system  by  repealing  the  remaining  pro 


visions. 


8         CONTEMPORARY   AMERICAN  HISTORY 

the  form  of  intimidation  at  the  polls.  It  was  carried 
forward  another  step  when  the  "carpet  baggers"  and 
other  politicians  who  had  organized  and  used  the  negro 
vote  were  deprived  of  Federal  support  and  driven  out. 
When  this  active  outside  interference  in  southern  politics 
was  cut  off,  thousands  of  negroes  stayed  away  from  the 
polls  through  sheer  indifference,  for  their  interest  in 
politics  had  been  stimulated  by  artificial  forces  —  bribery 
and  absurd  promises.  Intimidation  and  indifference 
worked  a  widespread  disfranchisement  before  the  close 
of  the  seventies. 

These  early  stages  in  the  process  of  disfranchisement 
were  described  by  Senator  Tillman  in  his  famous  speech 
of  February  26,  1900.  "You  stood  up  there  and  in 
sisted  that  we  give  these  people  a  '  free  vote  and  a  fair 
count.'  They  had  it  for  eight  years,  as  long  as  the  bayo 
nets  stood  there.  .  .  .  We  preferred  to  have  a  United 
States  army  officer  rather  than  a  government  of  carpet 
baggers  and  thieves  and  scallywags  and  scoundrels  who 
had  stolen  everything  in  sight  and  mortgaged  posterity ; 
who  had  run  their  felonious  paws  into  the  pockets  of 
posterity  by  issuing  bonds.  When  that  happened  we 
took  the  government  away.  We  stuffed  the  ballot 
boxes.  We  shot  them.  We  are  not  ashamed  of  it. 
With  that  system  —  force,  tissue  ballots,  etc.  —  we 
got  tired  ourselves.  So  we  had  a  constitutional  conven 
tion,  and  we  eliminated,  as  I  said,  all  of  the  colored  people 
whom  we  could  under  the  Fourteenth  and  Fifteenth 
Amendments."  The  experience  of  South  Carolina  was 
duplicated  in  Mississippi.  "For  a  time,"  said  the  Hon. 
Thomas  Spight,  of  that  state,  in  Congress,  in  1904,  "we 


THE  RESTORATION  OF  WHITE  DOMINION     9 

were  compelled  to  employ  methods  that  were  extremely 
distasteful  and  very  demoralizing,  but  now  we  are 
accomplishing  the  same  and  even  better  results  by  strictly 
constitutional  and  legal  procedure."  It  should  be  said, 
however,  that  in  the  states  where  the  negro  population 
was  relatively  smaller,  violence  was  not  necessary  to 
exclude  the  negroes  from  the  polls. 

A  peaceful  method  of  disfranchising  negroes  and  poor 
whites  was  the  imposition  of  a  poll  tax  on  voters. 
Negroes  seldom  paid  their  taxes  until  the  fight  over 
prohibition  commenced  in  the  eighties  and  nineties. 
Then  the  liquor  interests  began  to  pay  the  negroes' 
poll  taxes  and  by  a  generous  distribution  of  their  com 
modities  were  able  to  carry  the  day  at  the  polls.  There 
upon  the  prohibitionists  determined  to  find  some  effective 
constitutional  means  of  excluding  the  negroes  from 
voting. 

This  last  stage  in  the  disfranchisement  process  - 
the  disqualification  of  negroes  by  ingenious  constitu 
tional  and  statutory  provisions  —  was  hastened  by  the 
rise  during  the  eighties  and  nineties  of  the  radical  or 
Populist  party  in  the  South,  which  evenly  balanced  the 
Democratic  party  in  many  places  and  threatened  for  a 
time  to  disintegrate  the  older  organization.  In  this 
contest  between  the  white  factions  a  small  number  of 
active  negroes  secured  an  extraordinary  influence  in  hold 
ing  the  balance  of  power ;  and  both  white  parties  sought 
to  secure  predominance  by  purchasing  the  venal  negro 
vote  which  was  as  large  as,  or  perhaps  larger  than,  the 
venal  white  vote  in  such  northern  states  as  Connecticut, 
Rhode  Island,  or  Indiana.  The  conservative  wing  of 


io       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

the  white  population  was  happy  to  take  advantage 
of  the  prevailing  race  prejudice  to  secure  the  enactment 
of  legislation  disfranchising  a  considerable  number  of 
the  propertyless  whites  as  well  as  the  negroes;  and 
the  radicals  grew  tired  of  buying  negro  voters. 

Out  of  this  condition  of  affairs  came  a  series  of  con 
stitutional  conventions  which  devised  all  sorts  of  re 
strictions  to  exclude  the  negroes  and  large  numbers  of 
the  "lower  classes"  from  voting  altogether,  without 
directly  violating  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  to  the  Fed 
eral  Constitution  providing  against  disfranchisement  on 
account  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of  servitude. 

The  series  of  conventions  opened  in  Mississippi  in 
1890,  where  the  Populistic  whites  were  perhaps  numeri 
cally  fewest.  At  that  time  Mississippi  was  governed 
under  the  constitution  of  1868,  which  provided  that 
no  property  or  educational  test  should  be  required  of 
voters,  at  least  not  before  1885,  and  also  stipulated 
that  no  amendment  should  be  made  except  by  legisla 
tive  proposal  ratified  by  the  voters.  Notwithstanding 
this  provision,  the  legislature  in  February,  1890,  called 
a  convention  to  amend  the  constitution  "or  enact  a 
new  constitution."  This  convention  proceeded  to  "or 
dain  and  establish"  a  new  frame  of  government,  with 
out  referring  it  to  the  voters  for  ratification;  and  the 
courts  of  the  state  set  judicial  sanction  on  the  procedure, 
saying  that  popular  ratification  was  not  necessary. 
This  constitution  provides  that  every  elector  shall, 
in  addition  to  possessing  other  qualifications,  "be  able 
to  read  any  section  of  the  constitution  of  this  state ;  or 
he  shall  be  able  to  understand  the  same  when  read  to 


THE  RESTORATION  OF  WHITE  DOMINION   n 

him  or  to  give  a  reasonable  interpretation  thereof." 
Under  such  a  general  provision  everything  depends  upon 
the  attitude  of  the  election  officials  toward  the  appli 
cants  for  registration,  for  it  is  possible  to  disfranchise 
any  person,  no  matter  how  well  educated,  by  requiring 
the  "  interpretation  "  of  some  obscure  and  technical  legal 
point. 

Five  years  later  South  Carolina  followed  the  example 
of  Mississippi,  and  by  means  of  a  state  convention 
enacted  a  new  constitution  disfranchising  negroes; 
and  put  it  into  force  without  submitting  it  to  popular 
ratification.1  The  next  year  (1896)  the  legislature  of 
Louisiana  called  a  convention  empowered  to  frame  a 
new  constitution  and  to  put  it  into  effect  without  popu 
lar  approval.  This  movement  was  opposed  by  the 
Populists,  one  of  whom  declared  in  the  legislature  that 
it  was  "a  step  in  the  direction  of  taking  the  government 
of  this  state  out  of  the  hands  of  the  masses  and  putting 
it  in  the  hands  of  the  classes."  In  spite  of  the  opposi 
tion,  which  was  rather  formidable,  the  convention  was 
assembled,  and  ordained  a  new  frame  of  government 
(1898)  disfranchising  negroes  and  many  whites.  The 
Hon.  T.  J.  Symmes,  addressing  the'  convention  at  the 
close,  frankly  stated  that  their  purpose  was  to  establish 
the  supremacy  of  the  Democratic  party  as  the  white 
man's  party. 

Four   principal   devices   are   now   employed   in    the 

1  Disfranchising  provisions  were  adopted  in  other  southern  states  as    ' 
follows :  North  Carolina,  in  1900 ;  Alabama  and  Virginia,  in  1901 ;  Georgia, 
in  1908.     See  Lobingier,  The  People's  Law,  pp.  301  ff. ;  W.  F.  Dodd, 
Revision  and  Amendment  of  State  Constitutions. 


12       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

several  constitutional  provisions  disfranchising  negroes : 
(i)  a  small  property  qualification,  (2)  a  prerequisite 
that  the  voter  must  be  able  to  read  any  section  of  the 
state  constitution  or  explain  it,  when  read,  to  the  satis 
faction  of  the  registering  officers,  (3)  the  "grandfather 
clause,"  as  in  Louisiana  where  any  person,  who  voted 
on  or  before  1867  or  the  son  or  grandson  of  such  person, 
may  vote,  even  if  he  does  not  possess  the  other  quali 
fications  ;  and  (4)  the  wide  extension  of  disfranchisement 
for  crimes  by  including  such  offenses  as  obtaining  money 
under  false  pretenses,  adultery,  wife-beating,  petit  lar 
ceny,  fraudulent  breach  of  trust,  among  those  which 
work  deprivation  of  the  suffrage. 

The  effect  of  these  limitations  on  the  colored  vote  has 
been  to  reduce  it  seriously  in  the  far  South.  If  the 
negro  has  the  amount  of  taxable  property  required  by 
the  constitution,  he  is  caught  by  the  provision  which 
requires  him  to  explain  a  section  of  the  state  constitu 
tion  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  white  registering  officers. 
The  meanest  white,  however,  can  usually  get  through 
the  net  with  the  aid  of  his  grandfather,  or  by  showing 
his  expertness  in  constitutional  law.  Mr.  J.  C.  Rose 
has  published  the  election  statistics  for  South  Carolina 
and  Mississippi ; 1  it  appears  that  in  those  states  there 
were,  in  1900,  about  350,796  adult  male  negroes  and 
that  the  total  Republican  vote  in  both  commonwealths 
in  the  national  election  of  that  year  was  only  5443. 
At  a  rough  guess  perhaps  2000  votes  of  this  number  were 
cast  by  white  men,  and  the  conclusion  must  be  that 
about  ninety-nine  out  of  every  hundred  negroes  failed 

1  The  Political  Science  Review,  November,  1906,  p.  20. 


THE  RESTORATION  OF  WHITE  DOMINION    13 

to  vote  for  President  in  those  states.  It  is  fair  to  state, 
however,  that  indifference  on  the  part  of  the  negroes 
was  to  some  extent  responsible  for  the  small  vote. 

The  legal  restrictions  completed  the  work  which 
had  been  begun  by  intimidation.  Under  the  new  con 
stitution  of  1890  in  Mississippi,  only  8615  negroes  out 
of  147,000  of  a  voting  age  were  registered.  In  four 
years,  the  number  registered  in  Louisiana  fell  from  127,- 
ooo  in  1896  to  5300  in  1900.  This  was  the  exact  result 
which  the  advocates  of  white  supremacy  desired  to 
attain,  and  in  this  they  were  warmly  supported  by  emi 
nent  Democrats  in  the  North.  "The  white  man  in 
the  South,"  said  Mr.  Bryan  in  a  speech  in  New 
York,  in  1908,  "has  disfranchised  the  negro  in  self- 
protection ;  and  there  is  not  a  Republican  in  the  North 
who  would  not  have  done  the  same  thing  under  the 
same  circumstances.  The  white  men  of  the  South  are 
determined  that  the  negro  will  and  shall  be  disfranchised 
everywhere  it  is  necessary  to  prevent  the  recurrence  of 
the  horrors  of  carpet  bag  rule." 

Several  attempts  have  been  made  to  test  the  con 
stitutionality  of  these  laws  in  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States,  but  that  tribunal  has  been  able  to 
avoid  coming  to  a  direct  decision  on  the  merits  of  the 
particular  measures  —  and  with  a  convincing  display 
of  legal  reasoning.  The  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  simply  states  that  no  citizen  shall  be  deprived 
of  the  right  to  vote  on  account  of  race,  color,  or  previous 
condition  of  servitude,  and  that  the  representation  of 
any  state  in  Congress  shall  be  reduced  in  the  proportion 
to  which  it  deprives  adult  male  citizens  of  the  franchise. 


14       CONTEMPORARY   AMERICAN  HISTORY 

The  ingenious  provisions  of  the  southern  constitutions 
do  not  deprive  the  negro  of  the  right  to  vote  on  account 
of  his  color,  but  on  account  of  his  grandfather,  or  his 
inability  to  expound  the  constitution,  or  his  poverty. 
In  one  of  the  cases  before  the  Supreme  Court,  the  plain 
tiff  alleged  that  the  Alabama  constitution  was  in  fact 
designed  to  deprive  the  negro  of  the  vote,  but  the  Court 
answered  that  it  could  not  afford  the  remedy,  that  it 
could  not  operate  the  election  machinery  of  the  state, 
and  that  relief  would  have  to  come  from  the  state  itself, 
or  from  the  legislative  and  political  departments  of  the 
Federal  government.1 

Social  Discrimination  against  the  Negro 

The  whites  in  the  South  were  even  less  willing  to 
submit  to  anything  approaching  social  equality  with  the 
negro  than  they  were  to  accept  political  equality.  Dis 
criminations  against  the  negro  in  schools,  inns,  theaters, 
churches,  and  other  public  places  had  been  common  in 
the  North  both  before  and  after  the  Civil  War,  and  had 
received  judicial  sanction ;  and  it  may  well  be  imagined 
that  the  southern  masters  were  in  no  mood,  after  the 
War,  to  be  put  on  the  same  social  plane  as  their  former 
slaves,  and  the  poor  whites  were  naturally  proud  of 
their  only  possession  —  a  white  skin.  Knowing  full 
well  that  this  temper  prevailed  in  the  South  the  radical 
Republicans  in  Congress  had  pushed  through  on  March 
i,  1875,  a  second  Civil  Rights  Act  designed  to  establish  a 
certain  social  equality,  so  far  as  that  could  be  done  by  law. 

1  Giles  i).  Harris,  189  U.  S.,  474. 


THE  RESTORATION  OF  WHITE  DOMINION   15 

The  spirit  of  this  act  was  reflected  in  the  preamble : 
"  Whereas  it  is  essential  to  just  government,  we  recognize 
the  equality  of  all  men  before  the  law,  and  hold  that  it 
is  the  duty  of  government  in  its  dealings  with  the  people 
to  mete  out  equal  and  exact  justice  to  all,  of  whatever 
nativity,  race,  color,  or  persuasion,  religious  or  politi 
cal  ;  and  it  being  the  appropriate  object  of  legislation 
to  enact  great  fundamental  principles  into  law."  After 
this  profession  of  faith,  the  act  proceeds  to  declare  that 
all  persons  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States 
shall  be  entitled  to  the  full  and  equal  enjoyment  of  the 
accommodations,  advantages,  facilities,  and  privileges 
of  inns,  public  conveyances  on  land  or  water,  theaters 
and  other  places  of  amusement,  subject  to  limitations 
applied  to  all  alike,  regardless  of  race  or  color.  The 
act  further  provided  that  in  the  selection  of  jurors  no 
discrimination  should  be  made  on  account  of  race,  color, 
or  previous  condition  of  servitude  under  a  penalty  of 
not  more  than  $5,000.  Jurisdiction  over  offenses  was 
conferred  upon  the  district  and  circuit  courts  of  the 
United  States,  and  heavy  penalties  were  imposed  upon 
those  who  violated  the  law.  This  measure  was,  of 
course,  hotly  resisted,  and,  in  fact,  nullified  everywhere 
throughout  the  Union,  north  and  south  —  except  in 
some  of  the  simple  rural  regions. 

The  validity  of  the  act  came  before  the  Supreme  Court 
for  adjudication  in  the  celebrated  Civil  Rights  Cases 
in  1883  and  a  part  of  the  law  was  declared  unconstitu 
tional  in  an  opinion  of  the  Court  rendered  by  Mr.  Jus 
tice  Bradley.  According  to  his  view,  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  did  not  authorize  Congress  to  legislate 


16       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

upon  subjects  which  were  in  the  domain  of  state  legis 
lation  —  that  is  to  create  a  code  of  municipal  law  for 
the  regulation  of  private  rights ;  but  it  merely  authorized 
Congress  to  provide  modes  of  relief  against  state  legis 
lation  and  the  action  of  state  officers,  executive  or  ju 
dicial,  which  were  subversive  of  the  fundamental  rights 
specified  in  the  amendment.  "  Until  some  state  law 
has  been  passed,"  he  said,  "or  some  state  action  through 
its  officers  or  agents  has  been  taken,  adverse  to  the  rights 
of  citizens  sought  to  be  protected  by  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment,  no  legislation  of  the  United  States  under 
said  Amendment,  nor  any  proceeding  under  such  legis 
lation  can  be  called  into  activity :  for  the  prohibitions 
of  the  Amendment  are  against  state  laws  and  acts  done 
under  state  authority." 

The  question  as  to  whether  the  equal  enjoyment  of 
the  accommodations  in  inns,  conveyances,  and  places  of 
amusement  was  an  essential  right  of  the  citizen  which 
no  state  could  abridge  or  interfere  with,  Justice  Bradley 
declined  to  examine  on  the  ground  that  it  was  not 
necessary  to  the  decision  of  the  case.  He  did,  however, 
inquire  into  the  proposition  as  to  whether  Congress,  in 
enforcing  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  abolishing  slavery 
and  involuntary  servitude,  could  secure  the  social 
equality  contemplated  by  the  act,  under  the  color  of 
sweeping  away  all  the  badges  and  incidents  of  slavery. 
And  on  this  point  he  came  to  the  conclusion  that  mere 
discriminations  on  account  of  race  or  color  could  not  be 
regarded  as  badges  of  slavery.  "There  were,"  he  added, 
"thousands  of  free  colored  people  in  this  country  before 
the  abolition  of  slavery,  enjoying  all  of  the  essential 


THE  RESTORATION  OF  WHITE  DOMINION   17 

rights  of  life,  liberty,  and  property  the  same  as  white 
citizens ;  and  yet  no  one  at  that  time  thought  that  it 
was  any  invasion  of  his  personal  status  as  a  freeman 
because  he  was  not  admitted  to  all  of  the  privileges 
enjoyed  by  white  citizens,  or  because  he  was  subjected 
to  discriminations  in  the  enjoyment  of  accommodations 
in  inns,  public  conveyances,  and  places  of  amusement." 

Clearly,  there  was  no  authority  in  either  the  Thir 
teenth  or  Fourteenth  Amendment  for  the  section  of  the 
Civil  Rights  Act  relative  to  inns,  conveyances,  and  places 
of  amusement,  at  least  so  far  as  its  operation  in  the 
several  states  was  concerned.  If,  however,  any  state 
should  see  fit  to  make  or  authorize  unlawful  discrimina 
tions  amenable  to  the  prohibitions  of  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment,  Congress  had  the  power  to  afford  a  remedy 
or  the  courts  in  enforcing  the  Amendment  could  give 
judicial  relief.  Thus,  while  the  Justice  did  not  definitely 
say  that  the  elements  of  social  equality  provided  in  the 
Civil  Rights  Act  were  not  guaranteed  by  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment,  his  line  of  reasoning  and  his  language  left 
little  doubt  as  to  what  was  the  view  of  the  Court. 

Section  four  of  the  Civil  Rights  Act  forbidding,  under 
penalty,  discrimination  against  any  person  on  account 
of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of  servitude  in  the 
selection  of  jurors  had  been  passed  upon  by  the  Supreme 
Court  in  the  case  of  Ex  parte  Virginia,  decided  in  1879, 
in  which  the  section  was  held  to  be  constitutional  as 
providing  not  a  code  of  municipal  law  for  the  regulation 
of  private  rights,  but  a  mode  of  redress  against  the 
operation  of  state  laws.  The  ground  of  distinction 
between  the  two  cases  is  clear.  A  section  forbidding 


i8       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

discrimination  in  inns  and  conveyances  is  in  the  nature 
of  a  code  of  private  law,  but  a  section  forbidding 
discrimination  in  the  selection  of  jurors  under  penalty 
simply  provides  a  mode  of  redress  against  violations  of 
the  Fourteenth  Amendment  by  state  authorities. 

Undoubtedly  there  is  an  admissible  distinction  be 
tween  discrimination  against  negroes  in  the  selection 
of  juries  and  the  discrimination  against  them  in  inns  and 
public  conveyances,  for  the  former  may  have  definite 
connection  with  the  security  of  those  civil  rights  of  per 
son  and  property  —  as  distinct  from  social  rights  — 
which  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  was  clearly  designed 
to  enforce.  This  was  the  principle  which  was  brought 
out  by  the  Court  in  the  two  decisions.1  But  if 
Justice  Bradley  in  the  Civil  Rights  cases  had  frankly 
made  the  distinction  between  civil  and  social  rights,  and 
declared  the  act  unconstitutional  on  the  ground  that 
it  attempted  to  secure  social  rights  which  the  Four 
teenth  Amendment  was  not  intended  to  establish,  then 
the  decisions  of  the  Court  would  have  been  far  more 
definite  in  character. 

Even  if  the  Supreme  Court  had  not  declared  the  social 
equality  provision  of  the  Civil  Rights  Act  unconstitu 
tional,  it  is  questionable  whether  any  real  attempt 
would  have  been  made  to  enforce  it.  As  it  turned  out, 
the  Court  gave  judicial  sanction  to  a  view  undoubtedly 
entertained  by  the  major  portion  of  the  whites  every 
where,  and  it  encouraged  the  South  to  proceed  with 

1  See  a  Massachusetts  case  decided  before  the  Civil  War  upholding 
similar  discriminations  against  negroes.  Thayer,  Cases  on  Constitu 
tional  Law,  Vol.  I,  p.  576. 


THE  RESTORATION  OF  WHITE  DOMINION   19 

further  discriminatory  legislation  separating  the  races 
in  all  public  and  quasi-public  places.  Railroads  and 
common  carriers  were  compelled  to  provide  separate 
accommodations  for  whites  and  blacks,  "  Jim  Crow  Cars," 
as  they  are  called  in  popular  parlance,  and  to  furnish 
special  seats  in  street  railway  cars.  These  laws  have 
also  been  upheld  by  the  courts ;  but  not  without  a  great 
strain  on  their  logical  faculties. 

Undoubtedly  there  are  mixed  motives  behind  such 
legislation.  It  is  in  some  part  a  class  feeling,  for 
whites  are  allowed  to  take  their  colored  servants  in  the 
regular  coaches  and  sleeping  cars.  Nevertheless,  the 
race  feeling  unquestionably  predominates.  As  the 
author  of  the  Louisiana  "Jim  Crow  Car"  law  put  it: 
"It  is  not  only  the  desire  to  separate  the  whites  and 
blacks  on  the  railroads  for  the  comfort  it  will  provide, 
but  also  for  the  moral  effect.  The  separation  of  the 
races  is  one  of  the  benefits,  but  the  demonstration  of  the 
superiority  of  the  white  man  over  the  negro  is  the 
greater  thing.  There  is  nothing  that  shows  it  more  con 
clusively  than  the  compelling  of  negroes  to  ride  in  cars 
marked  for  their  especial  use." 

The  Attitude  of  the  North 

Although  all  possibility  of  northern  interference  with 
the  southern  states  in  the  management  of  their  domestic 
affairs  seemed  to  have  disappeared  by  Cleveland's  first 
administration,  the  negro  question  was  continuously 
agitated  by  Republican  politicians,  and  at  times  with 
great  vigor.  They  were  much  distressed  at  losing  their 


20       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

Federal  patronage  after  the  election  of  Cleveland  in 
1884;  and  this  first  Democratic  presidential  victory 
after  the  War  led  many  of  them  to  believe  that  they 
could  recover  their  lost  ground  only  by  securing  to  the 
negro  the  right  to  vote.  The  Republicans  were  also 
deeply  stirred  by  the  over-representation  of  the  South 
in  the  House  of  Representatives  under  the  prevailing 
system  of  apportionment.  They  pointed  out  that  the 
North  was,  in  this  respect,  at  even  a  greater  disadvantage 
than  before  the  Civil  War  and  emancipation. 

Under  the  original  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
only  three  fifths  of  the  slaves  were  counted  in  apportion 
ing  representatives  among  the  states;  under  the  Four 
teenth  Amendment  all  the  negroes  were  counted,  thus 
enlarging  the  representation  of  the  southern  states. 
And  yet  the  negroes  were  for  practical  purposes  as  dis 
franchised  as  they  were  when  they  were  in  servitude.  It 
was  pointed  out  that  "in  the  election  of  1888  the  average 
vote  cast  for  a  member  of  Congress  in  five  southern 
states  was  less  than  eight  thousand;  in  five  northern 
states,  over  thirty-six  thousand.  Kansas,  which  cast 
three  times  the  vote  of  South  Carolina,  had  only  the 
same  number  of  congressmen."  The  discrepancy 
tended  to  increase,  if  anything.  In  1906,  a  Mississippi 
district  with  a  population  of  232,174  cast  1540  votes, 
while  a  New  York  district  with  215,305  cast  29,119  votes. 

The  Republicans  have  several  times  threatened  to 
alter  this  anomalous  condition  of  affairs.  In  1890,  Mr. 
Lodge  introduced  in  the  House  of  Representatives  a 
bill  providing  for  the  appointment  of  federal  election 
commissioners,  on  petition  of  local  voters,  endowed  with 


THE  RESTORATION  OF  WHITE  DOMINION   21 

powers  to  register  and  count  all  votes,  even  in  the  face 
of  the  opposition  of  local  officers.  This  measure,  which 
passed  the  House,  was  at  length  killed  in  the  Senate. 
In  their  platform  of  1904,  the  Republicans  declared  in 
favor  of  restoring  the  negro  to  his  rights  under  the  Con 
stitution,  and  for  political  purposes  the  party  in  the 
House  later  coupled  a  registration  and  election  law  with 
the  measure  providing  for  publicity  of  campaign  contri 
butions.  It  was  not  acted  upon  in  the  Senate.  In 
1908,  the  Republicans  in  their  platform  declared  "once 
more  and  without  reservation,  for  the  enforcement  in 
letter  and  spirit  of  the  Thirteenth,  Fourteenth,  and 
Fifteenth  Amendments  to  the  Constitution  which  were 
designed  for  the  protection  and  advancement  of  the 
negro,"  and  condemned  all  devices  designed  to  disfran 
chise  him  on  grounds  of  color  alone.  Although  they 
have  been  in  possession  of  all  branches  of  the  Federal 
government  several  times,  the  Republicans  have  deemed 
it  inexpedient  to  carry  out  their  campaign  promises. 
With  the  decline  in  the  influence  of  the  Civil  War 
veterans  in  politics,  the  possibility  of  Federal  interference 
has  steadily  decreased.  The  North  had  never  been 
abolitionist  in  temper  or  political  belief,  as  the  vote  of 
the  Free  Soil  party  demonstrates.  The  Republican 
party  was  a  homestead,  railway,  and  protectionist  party 
opposed  to  slavery  in  the  territories,  and  its  great 
leader,  Lincoln,  had  long  been  on  record  as  opposed  to 
political  and  social  equality  for  the  negro.  Emanci 
pation  had  come  as  a  stroke  of  fortune  —  not  because 
a  majority  of  the  people  had  deliberately  come  to  the 
conclusion  that  it  was  a  measure  of  justice.  As  in  the 


22       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

French  Revolution  at  its  height,  the  extreme  radicals 
forged  to  the  front  for  a  time,  so  during  the  Civil  War 
and  its  aftermath,  " radical"  Republicans  held  the 
center  of  the  stage  and  gave  to  politics  a  flavor  of  talk 
about  " human  rights"  which  was  foreign  to  practical 
statesmen  like  Clay  and  Webster.  In  a  little  while, 
practical  men  came  to  the  helm  once  more,  and  they  were 
primarily  interested  in  economic  matters  —  railways, 
finance,  tariff,  corporations,  natural  resources,  and 
western  development.  The  cash  nexus  with  the  South 
was  formed  once  more,  and  made  far  stronger  and  subtler 
than  in  olden  days.  Agitation  of  the  negro  question  be 
came  bad  form  in  the  North,  except  for  quadrennial 
political  purposes. 

The  Negro  Problem 

Thus  the  negro,  suddenly  elevated  to  a  great  height 
politically,  was  almost  as  suddenly  dropped  by  his  new 
friends  and  thrown  largely  upon  his  own  ingenuity  and 
resources  for  further  advance.  His  emancipation  and 
enfranchisement  had  come  almost  without  effort  on  his 
own  part,  without  that  development  of  economic  interest 
and  of  class  consciousness  that  had  marked  the  rise  of 
other  social  strata  to  political  power.  It  was  fortuitous 
and  had  no  solid  foundation.  It  became  evident,  there 
fore,  that  any  permanent  advance  of  the  race  must  be 
built  on  substantial  elements  of  power  in  the  race  itself. 
The  whites  might  help  with  education  and  industrial 
training,  but  the  hope  of  the  race  lay  in  the  development 
of  intellectual  and  economic  power  on  its  own  account. 


THE  RESTORATION  OF  WHITE  DOMINION   23 

In  relative  numerical  strength  the  negro  is  not  hold 
ing  his  own,  because  of  the  large  immigration  from 
Europe.  In  1790,  the  negro  population  formed  19.3 
per  cent  of  the  whole,  and  since  that  time  it  has  almost 
steadily  declined,  reaching  at  the  last  census  10.7  per 
cent  of  the  whole.  Even  in  the  southern  states  where 
the  stream  of  foreign  immigration  is  the  least,  the  negro 
population  has  fallen  from  35.2  per  cent  in  1790  to 
29.8  per  cent  in  1910.  In  education,  the  negro  has 
undoubtedly  made  great  progress  since  the  War,  but 
it  must  be  remembered  that  he  was  then  at  the  bottom 
of  the  scale.  The  South,  though  poor  as  compared  with 
the  North,  has  made  large  expenditures  for  negro  educa 
tion,  but  it  is  authoritatively  reported  that  "  nearly  half 
of  the  negro  children  of  school  age  in  the  South  never 
get  inside  of  the  schoolhouse." 1  The  relative  expendi 
tures  for  the  education  of  white  and  colored  children 
there  are  not  ascertainable,  but  naturally  the  balance  is 
heavily  in  favor  of  the  former.  When  we  recall,  how 
ever,  the  total  illiteracy  of  the  race  under  slavery  and 
then  discover  that  in  1910  there  was  an  average  daily 
attendance  of  1,105,629  colored  children  in  the  southern 
schools,  we  cannot  avoid  the  conclusion  that  decided 
changes  are  destined  to  be  made  in  the  intellectual 
outlook  of  the  race. 

Reports  also  show  that  negroes  are  accumulating 
considerable  property  and  are  becoming  in  large  numbers 
the  holders  of  small  farms.  Nevertheless  a  very  care 
ful  scholar,  Dr.  Walter  Willcox,  believes  that  the  figures 
"seem  to  show  that  the  negro  race  at  the  South,  in  its 

1  This  is  partly  due  to  the  absence  of  compulsory  attendance  laws. 


24       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

competition  with  the  whites,  lost  ground  between  1890 
and  1900  in  the  majority  of  skilled  occupations  which 
can  be  distinguished  by  the  aid  of  the  census  figures." 
Taking  the  economic  status  of  the  race  as  a  whole,  the 
same  authority  adds:  "The  conclusion  to  which  I  am 
brought  is  that  relatively  to  the  whites  in  the  South,  if 
not  absolutely  as  measured  by  any  conceivable  standard, 
the  negro  as  a  race  is  losing  ground,  is  being  confined 
more  and  more  to  the  inferior  and  less  remunerative 
occupations,  and  is  not  sharing  proportionately  to  his 
numbers  in  the  prosperity  of  the  country  as  a  whole  or 
of  the  section  in  which  he  mainly  lives." 

The  conclusions  of  the  statistician  are  confirmed  by 
the  impressions  of  such  eminent  champions  of  the  negro 
as  Dr.  W.  B.  Dubois  and  Mr.  Thomas  Fortune.  The 
former  declares  that  "in  well-nigh  the  whole  rural  South 
the  black  farmers  are  peons,  bound  by  law  and  custom 
to  an  economic  slavery,  from  which  the  only  escape  is 
death  or  the  penitentiary."  The  latter  holds  that  the 
negro  has  simply  passed  from  chattel  to  industrial  slavery 
"with  none  of  the  legal  and  selfish  restraints  upon  the 
employer  which  surrounded  and  actuated  the  master." 
These  writers  attribute  the  slow  advance  of  the  race  to 
the  bondage  of  law  and  prejudice  to  which  it  is  subjected 
in  the  South,  and  everywhere  in  the  country,  as  a  matter 
of  fact.  Whatever  the  cause  may  be,  there  seems  to 
be  no  doubt  that  the  colored  race  has  not  made  that 
substantial  economic  advance  and  achieved  that  stand 
ard  of  life  which  its  friends  hoped  would  follow  from 
emancipation.  Those  writers  who  emphasize  heredity 
in  sodial  evolution  point  to  this  as  an  evidence  of  the 


THE  RESTORATION  OF  WHITE  DOMINION   25 

inherent  disabilities  of  the  race ;  while  those  who  empha 
size  environment  point  out  the  immense  handicap  every 
where  imposed  on  the  race  by  law,  custom,  and  prejudice. 

Whatever  may  be  the  real  truth  about  the  economic 
status  of  the  race,  and  after  all  it  is  the  relative  progress 
of  the  mass  that  determines  the  future  of  the  race,  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  there  is  an  increasing  "race  con 
sciousness"  which  will  have  to  be  reckoned  with.  The 
more  conservative  school,  led  by  Booker  T.  Washington, 
is  working  to  secure  for  the  negro  an  industrial  training 
that  will  give  him  some  kind  of  an  economic  standing 
in  the  community,  and  if  this  is  achieved  for  large  num 
bers,  a  radical  change  in  social  and  political  outlook  will 
follow,  unless  all  signs  of  history  fail.  On  the  other 
hand,  there  is  growing  up  a  radical  party,  under  the 
inspiration  of  Dr.  W.  B.  Dubois,  which  pleads  for  un 
conditional  political  and  social  equality  as  a  measure 
of  immediate  justice.  Dr.  Dubois  demands  "the  raising 
of  the  negro  in  America  to  full  rights  and  citizenship. 
And  I  mean  by  this  no  halfway  measures ;  I  mean  full 
and  fair  equality.  That  is,  a  chance  to  work  regardless 
of  color,  to  aspire  to  position  and  preferment  on  the 
basis  of  desert  alone,  to  have  the  right  to  use  public 
conveniences,  to  enter  public  places  of  amusement  on 
the  same  terms  as  other  people,  and  to  be  received  so 
cially  by  such  persons  as  might  wish  to  receive  them." 

With  both  of  these  influences  at  work  and  all  the 
forces  of  modern  life  playing  upon  the  keener  section 
of  the  colored  population,  nothing  but  congenital  dis 
abilities  can  prevent  a  movement  which  ruling  persons, 
North  and  South,  will  have  to  take  into  account.  How 


26       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

serious  this  movement  becomes  depends,  however,  upon 
the  innate  capacity  of  colored  masses  to  throw  off  the 
shiftlessness  and  indifference  to  high  standards  of  life 
that,  their  best  friends  admit,  stand  in  the  way  of  their 
gaining  a  substantial  economic  basis,  without  which 
any  kind  of  a  solid  political  superstructure  is  impos 
sible.  The  real  negro  question  now  is :  "  Can  the  race 
demonstrate  that  capacity  for  sustained  economic  ac 
tivity  and  permanent  organization  which  has  lifted  the 
white  masses  from  serfdom?" 


CHAPTER  II 

THE   ECONOMIC  REVOLUTION 

LONG  before  the  Civil  War,  steam  and  machinery  had 
begun  to  invade  American  industries^  and  statesmen  of 
the  new  commercial  and  industrial  order  had  appeared 
in  Washington.  The  census  of  1860  reported  nearly 
a  million  and  a  half  wage  earners  in  the  United  States, 
and  more  than  a  billion  dollars  invested  in  manufactur 
ing.  By  that  year  over  thirty  thousand  miles  of  rail 
way  had  been  constructed,  including  such  important 
lines  as  the  New  York  Central,  the  Erie,  the  Baltimore 
and  Ohio,  and  the  Pennsylvania.  Politicians  of  the 
type  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  who  discussed  slavery  in 
public  and  devoted  their  less  obvious  activities  to  secur 
ing  grants  of  public  lands  and  mineral  resources  to  rail 
way  and  manufacturing  corporations,  had  begun  to 
elbow  the  more  cultivated  and  respectable  leaders  like 
Calhoun,  Webster,  and  Alexander  Stephens,  who  be 
longed  to  the  old  order. 

But  the  spectacular  conflict  over  slavery  prevented 
the  political  results  of  the  economic  transformation 
from  coming  to  the  surface.  Those  who  had  occasion 
to  watch  the  proceedings  of  Congress  during  the  two 
decades  just  before  the  War  discovered  the  manipula 
tions  of  railway  corporations  seeking  land  grants  and 

27 


28       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

privileges  from  the  Federal  Government  and  the  opera 
tions  of  the  " protected"  interests  in  behalf  of  increased 
tariffs.  Those  were  also  harvest  days  for  corporations 
and  companies  in  the  state  legislatures  where  special 
charters  and  privileges  were  being  bartered  away  by  the 
wholesale.  There  was  emerging  in  a  number  of  the 
larger  industrial  centers  a  small,  though  by  no  means 
negligible,  labor  movement.  But  the  slavery  issue 
overshadowed  everything.  The  annexation  of  /Texas, 
slavery  in  the  territories,  the  Compromise  of  1850,  the 
Nebraska  bill,  and  Bleeding  Kansas  kept  the  mind  of 
the  North  from  the  consideration  of  the  more  funda 
mental  economic  problems  connected  with  the  new 
order.  The  politicians,  to  be  sure,  did  not  live  by  the 
slavery  agitation  alone,  but  it  afforded  the  leading 
topics  for  public  discussion  and  prevented  the  critical 
from  inquiring  too  narrowly  into  the  real  staples  of 
politics. 

The  Civil  War  sharply  shifted  the  old  scenery  of! 
politics.  It  gave  a  tremendous  impetus  to  industry 
and  railway  construction.  The  tariff  measures  dur 
ing  the  War  gave  to  manufacturers  an  unwonted  pro 
tection  against  foreign  competition;  the  demand  for 
war  supplies,  iron,  and  steel,  railway  materials,  textiles, 
and  food  supplies,  quickened  every  enterprise  in  the 
North;  the  great  fortunes  made  out  of  speculations 
in  finances,  contracts  for  government  supplies,  and 
land-grants  placed  an  enormous  capital  in  private 
hands  to  carry  forward  business  after  the  War  was 
over. 

Within  little  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century  the 


THE   ECONOMIC   REVOLUTION  29 

advance  of  industry  and  commerce  had  made  the  United 
States  of  Lincoln's  day  seem  small  and  petty.  The 
census  of  1905  showed  over  twelve  billion  dollars  in 
vested  in  factories  and  nearly  five  and  one  half  million 
wage  earners  employed.  In  that  year,  the  total  value  of 
manufactured  products  was  over  fourteen  billion  dollars 
—  fifteen  times  the  amount  turned  out  in  1860.  As 
late  as  1882  the  United  States  imported  several  hundred 
thousand  tons  of  steel  rails  annually,  but  within  ten 
years  the  import  had  fallen  to  134  tons  and  no  less  than 
15,000  tons  were  exported.  At  the  close  of  the  Civil 
War  about  3000  tons  of  Bessemer  steel  were  produced 
annually,  but  within  twenty  years  over  two  million 
tons  were  put  out  every  twelve  months. 

The  building  of  railways  more  than  kept  pace  with 
the  growth  of  the  population  and  the  increase  in  manu 
facturing.  There  were  30,000  miles  of  lines  in  1860; 
52,000  in  1870;  166,000  in  1890;  and  242,000  in  1910. 
Beginning  at  first  with  the  construction  of  lines  between 
strategic  centers  like  Boston  and  Albany,  and  Phila 
delphia  and  Reading,  the  leaders  in  this  new  enterprise 
grew  more  bold.  They  pushed  rapidly  into  the  West 
where  there  were  no  cities  of  magnitude  and  no  pros 
pect  of  developing  a  profitable  business  within  the  im 
mediate  future.  Capital  flowed  into  the  railways  like 
water ;  European  investors  caught  the  fever ;  farmers 
and  merchants  along  prospective  lines  bought  stocks 
and  bonds,  expecting  to  reap  a  harvest  from  increased 
land  values  and  business,  only  to  find  their  paper 
valueless  on  account  of  preferred  claims  for  construc 
tion;  and  the  whole  West  was  aflame  with  dreams 


30       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

of  a  new  Eldorado  to  be  created  by  transportation 
systems. 

The  era  of  feverish  construction  was  shortly  followed 
by  the  combination  of  lines  and  the  formation  of  grand 
trunk  railways  and  particular  "  systems."  In  1869, 
Cornelius  Vanderbilt  united  the  Hudson  River  and  New 
York  Central  lines,  linking  the  metropolis  and  Buffalo, 
and  four  years  later  he  opened  the  way  to  Chicago  by 
leasing  the  Lake  Shore  Michigan  and  Southern.  About 
the  same  time  two  other  eastern  companies,  the  Penn 
sylvania  and  Baltimore  and  Ohio  secured  western  con 
nections  which  let  them  into  Chicago. 

It  must  not  be  thought  that  this  rapid  railway  ex 
pansion  was  due  solely  to  private  enterprise,  for,  as 
has  been  the  standing  custom  in  American  politics,  the 
cost  of  doubtful  or  profitless  undertakings  was  thrown 
as  far  as  possible  upon  the  public  treasury.  Up  to  1872, 
the  Federal  Government  had  granted  in  aid  of  rail 
ways  155,000,000  acres  of  land,  an  area  estimated  as 
"  almost  equal  to  the  New  England  states,  New  York, 
and  Pennsylvania  combined ;  nineteen  different  states 
had  voted  sums  aggregating  two  hundred  million  dollars 
for  the  same  purpose  ;  and  municipalities  and  individuals 
had  subscribed  several  hundred  million  dollars  to  help 
railway  construction."  To  the  Union  Pacific  concern 
alone  the  Federal  Government  had  granted  a  free  right 
of  way  through  public  lands,  twenty  sections  of  land 
with  each  mile  of  railway,  and  a  loan  up  to  fifty  million 
dollars  secured  by  a  second  mortgage  on  the  company's 
property.  The  Northern  Pacific  obtained  lands  which 
a  railway  official  estimated  to  be  worth  enough  "to 


THE  ECONOMIC   REVOLUTION  31 

build  the  entire  railroad  to  Puget  Sound,  to  fit  out  a 
fleet  of  sailing  vessels  and  steamers  for  the  China  and 
India  trade  and  leave  a  surplus  that  would  roll  up  into 
the  millions."  Cities,  townships,  counties,  and  states 
voted  bonds  to  help  build  railways  within  their  limits 
or  granted  rights  of  way  and  lands,  in  addition,  with  a 
lavish  hand. 

The  chronicle  of  all  the  frauds  connected  with  the 
manipulation  of  land  grants  to  railways  and  the  shame 
less  sale  of  legal  privileges  cannot  be  written,  because 
in  most  instances  no  tangible  records  have  been  left. 
Perhaps  the  most  notorious  of  all  was  the  Credit  Mo- 
bilier  scandal  connected  with  the  Union  Pacific.  The 
leading  stockholders  in  that  company  determined  to 
secure  for  themselves  a  large  portion  of  the  profits  of 
construction,  which  were  enormous  on  account  of  the 
prodigal  waste ;  and  they  organized  a  sham  concern 
known  as  the  Credit  Mobilier  in  which  they  had  full 
control  and  to  which  the  construction  profits  went. 
Inasmuch  as  the  Federal  Government  through  its  grants 
and  loans  was  an  interested  party  that  might  interfere 
at  any  time,  the  concern,  through  its  agent  in  Congress, 
Oakes  Ames,  a  representative  from  Massachusetts, 
distributed  generous  blocks  of  stock  to  "  approach 
able"  Senators  and  Representatives.  News  of  the 
transaction  leaked  out,  and  a  congressional  investiga 
tion  in  1872  showed  that  a  number  of  men  of  the  highest 
standing,  including  Mr.  Colfax,  the  Vice  President,  were 
deeply  implicated.  Nothing  was  done,  however;  the 
leading  conspirator,  Ames,  was  merely  censured  by  the 
House,  and  the  booty,  for  the  most  part,  remained  in  the 


32       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

hands  of  those  connected  with  the  scandal.  When  the 
road  was  complete,  "it  was  saddled  with  interest  pay 
ments  on  $27,000,000  first  mortgage  bonds,  $27,000,000 
government  bonds,  $10,000,000  income  bonds, 
$10,000,000  land  grant  bonds,  and  if  anything  were 
left,  dividend  payments  on  $36,000,000  of  stock." 

It  would  be  easy  to  multiply  figures  showing  astound 
ing  gains  in  industry,  business,  foreign  trade,  and  rail 
ways;  or  to  multiply  stories  of  scandalous  and  unfair 
practices  on  the  part  of  financiers,  but  we  are  not  pri 
marily  concerned  here  with  the  technique  of  inventions 
or  the  history  of  promotion.1  The  student  of  social 
and  political  evolution  is  concerned  rather  with  the 
effect  of  such  material  changes  upon  the  structure  of 
society,  that  is,  with  the  rearrangements  of  classes  and 
the  development  of  new  groups  of  interests,  which  are 
brought  about  by  altered  methods  of  gaining  a  livelihood 
and  accumulating  fortunes.  It  is  this  social  trans 
formation  that  changes  the  relation  of  the  individual  to 
the  state  and  brings  new  forces  to  play  in  the  struggle  for 
|  political  power.  The  social  transformation  which  fol- 
|  lowed  the  Civil  War  embraced  the  following  elements. 

1  The  following  brief  chronology  of  inventions  illustrates  the  rapidity 
in  the  technical  changes  in  the  new  industrial  development : 

1875  —  Bell's  telephone  in  operation  between  Boston  and  Salem. 

1879  —  Brush  arc  street  lighting  system  installed  in  San  Francisco. 

1882  —  Edison's  plant  for  incandescent  lighting  opened  in  New  York 
City. 

1882 — Edison's  electric  street  car  operated  at  Menlo  Park,  New 
Jersey. 

1885  —  Electric  street  railways  in  operation  at  Richmond,  Virginia, 
and  Baltimore. 


ECONOMIC  REVOLUTION  33 

In  the  first  place,  capital,  as  contrasted  with  agricul 
ture,  increased  enormously  in  amount  and  in  political  in 
fluence.  Great  pecuniary  accumulations  were  thence 
forward  made  largely  in  business  enterprise  —  including 
the  work  of  the  entrepreneur,  financier,  speculator,  and 
manipulator  under  that  general  term.  Inevitably,  the 
'jnost  energetic  and  the  keenest  minds  were  attracted  by 
the  dominant  mode  of  money-making)  Agricultural 
regions  were  drained  of  large  numbers  of  strenuous  and 
efficient  men,  who  would  otherwise  have  been  their 
natural  leaders  in  politics.  To  these  were  added  the 
energetic  immigrants  from  the  Old  World.  That  force 
ful,  pushing,  dominating  section  of  society  historically 
known  as  the  "natural  aristocracy  "  became  the  agents 
of  capitalism.  (The  scepter  of  power  now  passed  de 
finitively  from  the  masters  of  slaves  to  the  mas 
ters  of  "free  laborers."  )  The  literary  and  profes 
sional  dependents  of  the  ruling  groups  naturally  came 
to  the  defense  of  the  new  order.1  The  old  contest 
between  agrarianism  and  capitalism  now  took  on  a  new 
vigor.2 

On  the  side  of  the  masses  involved  in  the  transition 
this  economic  revolution  meant  an  increasing  propor 
tion  of  wage  workers  as  contrasted  with  agriculturalists, 
owning  and  operating  their  farms,  and  with  handi 
craftsmen.  This  increase  is  shown  by  the  following 
table,  giving  the  number  of  wage  earners  in  manu 
facturing  alone : 

1  For  the  keenest  analysis  of  this  social  transformation,  see  Veblen, 
Theory  of  the  Leisure  Class  and  Theory  of  Business  Enterprise. 

2  See  below,  Chaps.  VI  and  VII. 


34       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 


POPULATION 

WAGE  EARNERS 

-rgco 

27  IQI  876 

CK7  CXQ 

1860     

^1,4.47,^21 

1,211,24.6 

1870 

38,^8,2.71 

2,0^3,006 

1880     

^0,1  ^,783 

2,772,^0^ 

1890     

62,04.7,714. 

4.  2^1,^^^ 

IOOO 

7  <?,QQ4.,^7^ 

^  706  14.3 

IOIO 

OI  072  266 

6  6  1  ^  O4.6 

In  terms  of  social  life,  this  increase  in  wage  workers 
meant,  in  the  first  place,  a  rapid  growth  of  city  popu 
lations.  In  1860,  the  vast  majority  of  the  people  were 
agriculturists;  in  1890,  36.1  per  cent  of  the  population 
lived  in  towns  of  over  2500;  in  1900,  40.5  per  cent;  in 
1910,  46.3  per  cent.  In  the  forty  years  between  the 
beginning  of  the  Civil  War  and  the  close  of  the  century, 
Chicago  had  grown  from  109,260  to  1,698,575 ;  Greater 
New  York  from  1,174,779  to  3,437,202 ;  San  Francisco 
from  56,802  to  342,782. 

/  In  the  next  place,  the  demand  for  labor  stimulated 
immigration  from  Europe.  It  is  true  there  was  a  de 
cline  during  the  Civil  War,  and  the  panic  of  1873  checked 
the  tide  when  it  began  to  flow,  but  by  1880  it  had  nearly 
touched  the  half-a-million  mark,  and  by  1883  it  reached 
the  astounding  figure  of  788,992.  Almost  all  of  this 
immigration  was  from  Germany,  Ireland,  Great  Britain, 
and  Scandinavian  countries,  less  than  one  in  twenty  of 
the  total  number  coming  from  Austria-Hungary,  Italy, 
and  Poland  in  1880.  On  the  Pacific  coast,  railway 
building  and  industrial  enterprise,  in  the  great  dearth 


f*          THE  ECONOMIC   REVOLUTION  35 

V* 

of  Jabor,  resorted  to  the  Orient  for  large  supplies  of 
Chinese  coolies. 

This  industrial  development  meant  the  transformation 
of  vast  masses  of  the  people  into  a  proletariat,  with  all 
the  term  implies :  an  immense  population  housed  in 
tenements  and  rented  dwellings,  the  organization  of  the 
class  into  trades-unions,  labor  parties,  and  other  groups ; 
poverty  and  degradation  on  a  large  scale ;  strikes,  lock 
outs,  and  social  warfare;  the  employment  of  large 
numbers  of  women  and  children  in  factories ;  the  de 
mand  for  all  kinds  of  legislation  mitigating  the  evils  of 
the  capitalist  process ;  and  finally  attacks  upon  the  very 
basis  of  the  industrial  system  itself. 

This  inevitable  concomitant  of  the  mechanical  revolu 
tion,  the  industrial  proletariat,  began  to  make  itself  felt 
as  a  decided  political  and  economic  factor  in  the  decade 
that  followed  the  War.  Between  1860  and  1870,  the 
railway  engineers,  firemen,  conductors,  bricklayers,  and 
cigar  makers  had  formed  unions.  In  the  campaign  of 
1872  a  party  of  Labor  Reformers  appeared;  and  a  few 
years  later  the  Knights  of  Labor,  a  grand  consolidated 
union  of  all  trades  and  grades  of  workers,  came  into 
existence  as  an  active  force,  conducting  an  agitation  for 
labor  bureaus,  an  eight  hour  day,  abolition  of  contract 
labor  systems,  and  other  reforms,  and  at  the  same  time 
engineering  strikes. 

In  1877  occurred  the  first  of  the  great  labor  struggles 
in  that  long  series  of  campaigns  which  have  marked  the 
relations  of  capitalists  and  workingmen  during  the  past 
four  decades.  In  that  year,  trouble  began  between 
the  management  of  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  railway  and 


36       CONTEMPORARY   AMERICAN  HISTORY 

its  employees  over  a  threatened  reduction  in  wages — 
the  fourth  within  a  period  of  seven  years.  From  this 
starting  point  the  contest  spread  throughout  the  East 
and  Middle  West,  reaching  as  far  as  Texas.  Inasmuch 
as  there  was  already  considerable  unemployment,  the 
strikers  saw  that  only  by  violence  and  intimidation 
could  they  hope  to  prevent  the  companies  from  moving 
their  trains.  Troops  were  called  out  by  the  governors 
of  several  states  and  (Federal  assistance  was  invoked) 
Pittsburgh  fell  almost  completely  into  the  hands  of  the 
strikers ;  railway  buildings  were  burned  and  property 
to  the  value  of  more  than  ten  million  dollars  destroyed. 
Everywhere  the  raw  militia  of  the  states  was  found  to 
be  inefficient  £or  such  a  serious  purpose,  and  the  superior 
power  of  the  '^Federal  Government's  regular  troops  was 
demonstrated.,}  Where  railways  were  in  the  hands  of 
receivers,  Federal  courts  intervened  by  the  use  of  in 
junctions  and  the  first  blood  in  the  contest  between  the 
judiciary  and  labor  was  drawn. 

The  last,  but  perhaps  most  significant,  result  of  the 
industrial  revolution  above  described  has  been  the  rise 
of  enormous  combinations  and  corporations  in  industry 
as  well  as  in  transportation.  An  increasing  proportion 
of  the  business  of  the  country  has  passed  steadily  into 
corporate,  as  contrasted  with  individual,  ownership ; 1 
and  this  implies  a  momentous  change  in  the  rights,  re 
sponsibilities,  and  economic  theories  of  the  owners  of 
capital.  Moreover,  it  involves  the  creation  of  a  new 
class  of  men,  not  entrepreneurs  in  the  old  sense,  but  or 
ganizers  of  already  established  concerns  into  larger  units. 
1  See  below,  p.  234. 


THE   ECONOMIC   REVOLUTION  37 

The  industrial  revolution  had  not  advanced  very  far 
before  an  intense  competition  began  to  force  business 
men  to  combine  to  protect  themselves  against  their  own 
weapons.  As  early  as  1879  certain  oil  interests  of 
Cleveland,  Pittsburgh,  Philadelphia,  and  other  centers 
had  begun  to  control  competition  by  making  agreements 
through  their  officers.  Three  years  later,  they  devised 
an  excellent  scheme  for  a  closer  organization  in  the  for 
mation  of  a  " trust."  They  placed  all  their  stocks  in 
the  hands  of  nine  trustees,  including  John  D.  Rocke 
feller,  who  issued  in  return  certificates  representing  the 
proportionate  share  of  each  holder  in  the  concern,  and 
managed  the  entire  business  in  the  interests  of  the 
holders. 

The  trust  proved  to  be  an  attractive  proposition  to 
large  business  concerns.  Within  five  years  combina 
tions  had  been  formed  in  cotton  oil,  linseed  oil,  lead, 
sugar,  whisky,  and  cordage,  and  it  was  not  long  before 
a  system  of  interlocking  interests  began  to  consolidate 
the  control  of  all  staple  manufactures  in  the  hands  of  a 
few  financiers.  Six  years  after  its  formation  the  Stand 
ard  Oil  Company  was  paying  to  a  small  group  of  holders 
about  $20,000,000  annually  in  dividends  on  a  capital 
of  $90,000,000,  and  the  recipients  of  these  large  divi 
dends  began  to  invest  in  other  concerns.  In  1879, 
one  of  them,  H.  M.  Flagler,  became  a  director  of  the 
Valley  Railroad;  in  1882,  William  Rockefeller  appeared 
as  one  of  the  directors  of  the  Chicago,  Milwaukee,  and 
St.  Paul;  in  1887,  John  D.  Rockefeller  was  connected 
with  a  syndicate  which  absorbed  the  Minnesota  Iron 
Company,  and  about  the  same  time  representatives  of 


38       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

the  Oil  Trust  began  to  figure  in  the  Northern  Pacific, 
the  Missouri,  Kansas,  and  Texas,  and  the  Ohio  River 
railways.  Thus  a  perfect  network  of  financial  con 
nections  throughout  the  country  was  built  up. 

But  on  the  whole  the  decades  following  the  Civil 
War  were  characterized  by  economic^anarchy  —  laissez 
faire  with  a  vengeance.  There  were  prolonged  indus 
trial  crises  accompanied  by  widespread  unemployment 
and  misery  among  the  working  classes.  In  the  matter 
of  railway  management  the  chaos  was  unparalleled. 

Shortly  after  1870  a  period  of  ruinous  competition  set 
in  and  was  followed  by  severe  financial  crises  among 
the  railways.  Passenger  and  freight  rate  "wars"  for 
the  "through"  traffic  brought  many  roads  to  the  verge 
of  bankruptcy,  in  spite  of  their  valiant  efforts  to  save 
themselves  by  exorbitant  charges  on  subsidiary  branches 
where  they  had  no  competition.  Crooked  financeering, 
such  as  the  watering  of  stocks,  misappropriation  of 
construction  funds  by  directors,  and  the  purchase  of 
bankrupt  lines  by  directors  of  larger  companies  and  their 
resale  at  great  advances,  placed  a  staggering  burden  of 
interest  charges  against  practically  all  of  the  lines.  In 
1873  nearly  half  of  the  mileage  in  the  country  was  in 
the  hands  of  court  receivers,  and  between  1876  and  1879 
an  average  of  more  than  one  hundred  roads  a  year  were 
sold  under  the  foreclosure  of  mortgages.  In  all  this 
distress  the  investors  at  large  were  the  losers  while  the 
"inside"  operators  such  as  Jay  Gould,  Cornelius  Van- 
derbilt,  and  Russell  Sage  doubled  their  already  over 
topping  fortunes. 

A  very  good  example  of  this  "new  finance"  is  afforded 


THE  ECONOMIC   REVOLUTION  39 

by  the  history  of  the  Erie  Railway.  In  1868,  Vanderbilt 
determined  to  secure  possession  of  this  line  which  ran 
across  New  York  State  in  competition  with  the  New 
York  Central  and  Hudson  River  lines.  Jay  Gould  and 
a  group  of  operators,  who  had  control  of  the  Erie,  pro 
ceeded  to  water  the  stock  and  " unload"  upon  Vander 
bilt,  whose  agents  bought  it  in  the  hope  of  obtaining  the 
coveted  control.  After  a  steeple  chase  for  a  while  the 
two  promoters  came  to  terms  at  the  expense  of  the 
stockholders  and  the  public.  Between  July  i  and  Oc 
tober  24,  1868,  the  stock  of  the  Erie  was  increased  from 
$34,000,000  to  $57,000,000,  and  the  price  went  down 
ward  like  a  burnt  rocket.  During  the  short  period  of 
Gould's  administration  of  the  Erie  "the  capital  stock 
of  the  road  had  been  increased  $61,425,700  and  the  con 
struction  account  had  risen  from  $49,247,700  in  1867  to 
$108,807,687  in  1872.  Stock  to  the  amount  of 
$40,700,000  had  been  marketed  by  the  firm  of  Smith, 
Gould,  and  Martin,  and,  incredible  as  it  may  seem,  its 
sale  had  netted  the  company  only  $12,803,059."  1 

The  anarchy  in  railway  financing,  which  character 
ized  the  two  decades  after  the  War,  was  also  accom 
panied  by  anarchy  in  management.  A  Senate  investi 
gating  committee  in  1885  enumerated  the  following 
charges  against  the  railroads :  that  local  rates  were  un 
reasonably  high  as  compared  with  through  rates;  that 
all  rates  were  based  apparently  not  on  cost  of  service 
but  "what  the  traffic  would  bear";  that  discrimina 
tions  between  individuals  for  the  same  services  were 
constant;  that  "the  effect  of  the  prevailing  policy  of 

1  Youngman,  The  Economic  Causes  of  Great  Fortunes,  p.  75. 


40       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

railroad  management  is,  by  an  elaborate  system  of 
secret  special  rates,  rebates,  drawbacks,  and  concessions, 
to  foster  monopoly,  to  enrich  favorite  shippers,  to  pre 
vent  free  competition  in  many  lines  of  trade  in  which 
the  item  of  transportation  is  an  important  factor;" 
that  secret  rate  cutting  was  constantly  demoralizing 
business ;  that  free  passes  were  so  extensively  issued  as 
to  create  a  privileged  class,  thus  increasing  the  cost  to 
the  passenger  who  paid;  that  the  capitalization  and 
bonded  indebtedness  of  companies  largely  exceeded  the 
actual  cost  of  construction;  and  that  railway  corpora 
tions  were  engaged  in  other  lines  of  business  and  dis 
criminating  against  competitors  by  unfair  rate  manipu 
lations.  In  a  word,  the  theories  about  competition 
written  down  in  the  books  on  political  economy  were 
hopelessly  at  variance  with  the  facts  of  business  manage 
ment  ;  the  country  was  at  the  mercy  of  the  sharp  prac 
tices  of  transportation  promoters. 

However,  emphasis  upon  this  great  industrial  revolu 
tion  should  not  be  allowed  to  obscure  the  no  less  remark 
able  development  in  agriculture.  The  acreage  in  im 
proved  farm  lands  rose  from  113,032,614  in  1850  to 
478,451,750  in  1910.  In  the  same  period  the  number 
of  farms  increased  from  1,449,073  to  6,361,502.  Not 
withstanding  the  significant  fact  that  "  whereas  the 
total  population  increased  21  per  cent  between  1900  and 
1910,  the  urban  population  increased  34.8  per  cent  and 
the  rural  population  11.2  per  cent,"  the  broad  basis  of 
the  population  during  the  half  a  century  here  under 
consideration  has  remained  agricultural,  and  in  1913  it 


THE   ECONOMIC   REVOLUTION  41 

was  estimated  that  at  the  present  rate  of  transforma 
tion  "it  will  take  a  generation  before  the  relative  number 
of  industrial  wage  workers  will  have  reached  half  of  all 
bread  winners." 

The  Development  of  the  West 

When  Hayes  was  inaugurated,  a  broad  wedge  of  ter 
ritory  separated  the  organized  states  of  the  East  from 
their  sister  commonwealths  in  the  far  West — Oregon, 
California,  and  Nevada.  Washington,  Idaho,  Montana, 
Wyoming,  Utah,  Arizona,  New  Mexico,  Dakota,  and 
Indian  Territory  still  remained  territories.  Their 
combined  population  in  1870  was  under  half  a  million, 
less  than  that  of  the  little  state  of  Connecticut.  New 
Mexico  with  91,000  and  Utah  with  86,000  might,  with 
some  show  of  justification,  have  claimed  a  place  among 
the  states  because  Oregon  was  inhabited  by  only  90,000 
people.  The  commonwealth  of  Nevada,  with  42,000, 
was  an  anomaly ;  it  had  been  admitted  to  the  Union  in 
1864  to  secure  the  ratification  of  the  Thirteenth  Amend 
ment  abolishing  slavery. 

This  vast  and  sparsely  settled  region  was  then  in  the 
second  stage  of  its  economic  evolution.  The  trapper, 
hunter,  and  explorer  had  gathered  most  of  their  har 
vest,  and  the  ranchmen  and  cowboys  with  their  herds 
of  cattle  were  roaming  the  great  grazing  areas,  waging 
war  on  thieves,  land  syndicates,  and  finally  going  down 
to  defeat  in  the  contest  with  the  small  farmer  who 
fenced  off  the  fertile  fields  and  planted  his  homestead 
there.  So  bitter  were  the  contests  among  the  cattle 


42       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN   HISTORY 

kings,  and  so  extensive  was  the  lawlessness  in  these 
regions  during  the  seventies  and  early  eighties  that 
Presidents  were  more  than  once  compelled  to  warn  the 
warlike  parties  and  threaten  them  with  the  Federal 
troops. 

Of  course,  the  opening  of  the  railways  made  possible 
a  rapidity  in  the  settlement  of  the  remaining  territories 
which  outrivaled  that  of  the  older  regions.  The  first 
Pacific  railroad  had  been  completed  in  1869 ;  the  South 
ern  Pacific  connecting  New  Orleans  with  the  coast  was 
opened  in  1881 ;  and  two  years  later  the  Atchison, 
Topeka,  and  Santa  Fe  was  finished,  and  the  last  stroke 
was  put  on  the  Northern  Pacific,  connecting  Chicago  and 
Portland,  Oregon.  Thus  four  lines  of  communication 
were  established  with  the  coast,  traversing  the  best 
agricultural  regions  of  the  territories  and  opening  up  the 
mineral-bearing  regions  of  the  mountains  as  well.  Law 
less  promoters  fell  upon  the  land  and  mineral  resources 
with  that  rapacity  which  Burke  attributed  to  Hastings. 

Utah  presented,  in  the  eighties,  the  elements  of  an 
ordered  and  well-advanced  civilization  and  could  with 
some  show  of  reason  ask  for  admission  as  a  state.  The 
territory  had  been  developed  by  the  Mormons  who 
settled  there,  after  suffering  "  persecution  "  for  their  reli 
gious  opinions  and  their  plural  marriages,  in  Illinois  and 
Missouri.  Notwithstanding  an  act  of  Congress  passed 
in  1862  prohibiting  polygamy,  it  continued  to  flourish. 
The  territorial  officers  were  nearly  all  Mormons  and  the 
remoteness  of  the  Federal  authority  prevented  an 
enforcement  of  the  law.  Consequently,  it  remained  a 


THE   ECONOMIC   REVOLUTION  43 

dead  letter  until  1882,  when  Congress  enacted  the 
Edmunds  law  prescribing  heavy  penalties,  including  the 
loss  of  citizenship,  for  polygamous  practices.  Hun 
dreds  of  prosecutions  and  convictions  followed,  but 
plural  marriages  were  openly  celebrated  in  defiance  of 
the  law./  At  length,  in  1887,  Congress  passed  the  Ed 
munds-Tucker  act  authorizing  the  Federal  Government 
to  seize  the  property  of  the  Mormon  church.  I 

Meanwhile  the  gentile  population  increased  in  the 
territory;  and  at  length  the  Mormons,  seeing  that  the 
country  was  determined  to  suppress  polygamy  and  that, 
while  the  institution  was  maintained,  statehood  could 
not  be  secured,  decided  upon  at  least  an  outward  acquies 
cence  in  the  law.  After  much  discussion  in  Congress, 
and  notwithstanding  the  repeated  contention  that  the 
Mormons  were  not  sincere  in  their  promises,\  Utah  was 
admitted  as  a  state  in  1895  under  a  constitution  which, 
in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  enabling  act  of 
Congress,  forbade  polygamous  and  plural  marriages 
forever.  )  Thus  the  inhabitants  of  the  new  state  were 
bound  by  a  solemn  contract  with  the  Union  never  to 
restore  the  marriage  practices  which  had  caused  them 
so  much  trouble  and  " persecution,"  as  they  called  it. 

Although  the  Mormons  were  the  original  pioneers 
and  homestead  makers  in  that  great  region,  theirs  was 
in  fact  the  last  of  the  middle  tier  of  territories  to  receive 
statehood.  They  had  left  the  advancing  frontier  line 
far  behind.  To  the  northward  that  advance  was 
checked  by  the  enormous  Sioux  reservation  in  Dakota, 
but  the  discovery  of  gold  in  the  Black  Hills  marked  the 


44       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

doom  of  the  Indian  rights.  Miners  and  capitalists 
demanded  that  the  way  should  be  made  clear  for  their 
enterprise  and  the  land  hungry  were  clamoring  for  more 
farms.  Indeed,  before  Congress  could  act,^  pioneers  \ 
were  swarming  over  the  regions  around  the  Indian  lands^y 
Farmers  from  the  other  northern  states,  Norwegians, 
Germans,  and  Canadians  were  planting  their  homesteads 
amid  the  fertile  Dakota  fields;  the  population  of  the 
territory  jumped  from  14,181  in  1870  to  135,177  in 
1880,  and  before  the  close  of  the  next  decade  numbered 
more  than  half  a  million.  It  was  evident  that  the 
region  was  destined  to  be  principally  agricultural  in 
character,  inhabited  by  thrifty  farmers  like  those  of 
Iowa  and  Nebraska.  Pretensions  to  statehood  there 
fore  rose  with  the  rising  tide  of  population. 

Far  over  on  the  western  coast,  the  claims  of  Wash 
ington  to  statehood  were  being  urged.  The  population 
there  had  increased  until  it  rivaled  Oregon  and  passed 
the  neighboring  commonwealth  in  1890.  In  addition 
to  rich  agricultural  areas,  it  possessed  enormous  timber 
resources  which  were  to  afford  the  chief  industry  for 
a  long  time;  and  keen-sighted  men  foresaw  a  swift 
development  of  seaward  trade.  Between  the  Dakotas 
and  Washington  lay  the  narrow  point  of  Idaho  and  the 
mountainous  regions  of  Montana,  now  rapidly  filling 
up  with  miners  and  capitalists  exploiting  the  gold, 
silver,  coal,  copper,  and  other  mineral  resources,  and 
rivaling  the  sheep  and  cattle  kings  in  their  contest  for 
economic  supremacy. 

After  the  fashion  of  enterprising  westerners,  the  citi 
zens  of  these  territories  began  to  boast  early  of  their 


THE   ECONOMIC   REVOLUTION  45 

" enormous"  populations  and  their  " abounding"  wealth, 
and  to  clamor  for  admission  as  states.  Finding  their 
pleas  falling  upon  unheeding  ears,  the  people  of  the 
southern  Dakota  took  matters  into  their  own  hands  in 
1885,  called  a  convention,  framed  a  constitution,  and 
failing  to  secure  the  quick  and  favorable  action  of  Con 
gress  threatened  to  come  into  the  Union  unasked. 
Sober  counsels  prevailed,  however,  and  the  impatient 
Dakotans  were  induced  to  wait  awhile.  Meantime  the 
territory  was  divided  into  two  parts  in  1887,  after  a 
popular  vote  had  been  taken  on  the  matter. 

As  had  been  the  case  almost  from  the  beginning  of  the 
Republic,  the  admission  of  these  new  states  was  a  sub 
ject  of  political  controversy  and  intrigue  at  the  national 
capital.  During  Cleveland's  first  administration  the 
House  was  Democratic  and  the  Senate  Republican. 
Believing  that  Dakota  was  firmly  Republican,  the 
Senate  passed  the  measure  admitting  the  southern 
region  in  1886,  but  the  Democratic  House  was  unable 
to  see  eye  to  eye  with  the  Senate  on  this  matter.  In 
the  elections  of  1888,  the  Republicans  carried  the  House, 
and  it  was  evident  that  the  new  Congress  would  take 
some  action  with  regard  to  the  clamoring  territories. 
Montana  was  probably  Democratic,  and  Washington 
was  uncertain.  At  all  events  the  Democrats  thought  it 
wise  to  come  to  terms,  and  accordingly  on  February  22, 
1889,  the  two  Dakotas,  Washington,  and  Montana  were 
admitted  simultaneously. 

With  less  claim  td  statehood  than  any  common 
wealths  admitted  up  to  that  time,  except  Nevada,  the 
two  territories  of  Idaho  and  Wyoming  were  soon  enabled, 


46       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

by  the  assistance' of  the  politicians,  to  secure  admission 
to  the  Union.  Republican  politics  and  the  "  silver 
interests"  were  responsible  for  this  step.  Although 
neither  territory  had  over  40,000  inhabitants  in  1880, 
extravagant  claims  were  made  by  the  advocates  of  ad 
mission  —  claims  speedily  belied  by  the  census  of  1890, 
which  gave  Idaho  88,000  and  Wyoming  62,000.  At 
last  in  July,  1890,  they  were  admitted  to  the  Union,  and 
the  territorial  question  was  settled  for  a  time,  although 
Arizona  and  New  Mexico  felt  that  their  claims  were 
unjustly  treated.  It  was  not  until  seventeen  years 
later  that  another  new  state,  Oklahoma,  modeled  out 
of  the  old  Indian  Territory,  was  added  to  the  Union. 
Finally,  in  1912,  the  last  of  the  continental  territories, 
Arizona  and-  New  Mexico,  were  endowed  with  state 
hood.1 

The  Economic  Advance  of  the  South 

Notwithstanding  the  prominence  given  to  the  negro 
question  during  and  after  Reconstruction,  the  South  had 
other  problems  no  less  grave  in  character  to  meet. 
Industry  and  agriculture  were  paralyzed  by  the  devas 
tations  of  the  War.  A  vast  amount  of  material  capital 
—  railways,  wharves,  bridges,  and  factories  —  had 
been  destroyed  during  the  conflict;  and  fluid  capital 
seeking  investment  had  been  almost  destroyed  as  well. 
The  rich  with  ready  money  at  their  command  had  risked 
nearly  all  their  store  in  confederate  securities  or  had  lost 

xBy  an  act  passed  in  August,  1912,  Congress  provided  a  territorial 
legislature  for  Alaska,  which  had  been  governed  up  to  that  time  by  a 
governor  appointed  by  the  President  and  Senate,  under  acts  of  Congress. 


THE   ECONOMIC   REVOLUTION  47 

their  money  loaned  in  other  ways  through  the  wreck  of 
the  currency.  Plantations  had  depreciated  in  value, 
partly  because  of  the  destruction  of  equipment,  but 
especially  on  account  of  the  difficulties  of  working  the 
system  without  slave  labor.  The  South  had,  therefore,  to 
rehabilitate  the  material  equipment  of  industry  and  trans 
portation  and  to  put  agriculture  on  another  basis  than 
that  of  slave  labor.  Surely  this  was  a  gigantic  task. 

The  difficulties  of  carrying  forward  the  plantation 
system  with  free  negro  labor  compelled  the  holders  of 
large  estates  (many  of  which  were  heavily  mortgaged) 
to  adopt  one  of  two  systems :  the  leasing  or  renting  of 
small  plots  to  negroes  or  poor  whites,  or  the  outright  sale 
in  small  quantities  which  could  be  worked  by  one  or 
two  hands.  This  disintegration  of  estates  went  for 
ward  with  great  rapidity.  In  1860  the  average  holding 
of  land  in  the  southern  states  was  335.4  acres;  in  1880 
it  had  fallen  to  153.4 ;  and  in  1900  it  had  reached  138.2. 
The  great  handicap  was  the  difficulty  of  securing  the 
capital  to  develop  the  small  farm,  and  no  satisfactory 
system  for  dealing  with  this  problem  has  yet  been 
adopted. 

The  very  necessities  of  the  South  served  to  bind  that 
section  to  the  North  in  a  new  fashion.  Fluid  capital 
had  to  be  secured,  in  part  at  least,  from  the  North,  and 
northern  enterprise  found  a  new  outlet  in  the  reconstruc 
tion  of  the  old,  and  the  development  of  the  new,  indus 
tries  in  the  region  of  the  former  confederacy.  The 
number  of  cotton  spindles  in  the  South  increased  from 
about  300,000  in  1860  to  more  than  4,000,000  at  the 
close  of  the  century;  the  number  of  employees  rose 


48       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

from  10,000  to  nearly  100,000;  and  the  value  of  the 
output  leaped  from  $8,460,337  annually  to  $95,002,059. 
This  rapid  growth  was,  in  part,  due  to  the  abundance 
of  water  power  in  the  hill  regions,  the  cheap  labor  of 
women  and  children,  the  low  cost  of  living,  and  the  ab 
sence  of  labor  laws  interfering  with  the  hours  and  con 
ditions  of  work  in  the  factories. 

Even  in  the  iron  and  steel  industry,  West  Virginia 
and  Alabama  began  to  press  upon  the  markets  of  the 
North  within  less  than  twenty  years  after  the  close  of 
the  War.  In  1880,  the  latter  state  stood  tenth  among 
Ihe  pig-iron  producing  states;  in  1890  it  stood  third. 
VThe  southern  states  alone  now  produce  more  coal,  iron 
ore,  3,nd  pig  iron  than  all  of  the  states  combined  did  in 
1870.)  The  census  of  1909  reports  5685  manufacturing 
establishments  in  Virginia,  4931  in  North  Carolina, 
4792  in  Georgia,  and  3398  in  Alabama. 

The  social  effects  which  accompany  capitalist  develop 
ment  inevitably  began  to  appear  in  the  South.  The 
industrial  magnate  began  to  contest  with  the  old  aris 
tocracy  of  the  soil  for  supremacy ;  many  former  slave 
owners  and  their  descendants  drifted  into  manufactur 
ing  and  many  poor  whites  made  their  way  upward  into 
wealth  and  influence.  The  census  of  1909  reports  more 
than  thirty  thousand  proprietors  and  firm  members 
in  the  South  Atlantic  states,  an  increase  over  the  pre 
ceding  report  almost  equal  to  that  in  the  New  England 
states.  The  same  census  reports  in  the  southern  states 
more  than  a  million  wage  earners  —  equal  to  almost  two 
thirds  the  entire  number  in  the  whole  country  at  the 
opening  of  the  Civil  War.  The  percentage  of  increase 


THE   ECONOMIC   REVOLUTION  49 

in  the  wage  earners  of  the  South  Atlantic  states  between 
1904  and  1909  was  greater  than  in  New  England  or  the 
Middle  Atlantic  states. 

;With  this  swift  economic  development,  northern 
capital  streamed  into  the  South;  northern  money  was 
invested  in  southern  public  and  industrial  securities  in 
enormous  amounts;  and  energetic  northern  business 
men  were  to  be  found  in  southern  market  places  vying 
with  their  no  less  enterprising  southern  brethren.  The 
men  concerned  in  creating  this  new  nexus  of  interest 
between  the  two  regions  naturally  deprecated  the 
perpetual  agitation  of  sectional  issues  by  the  politicians, 
and  particularly  northern  interference  in  the  negro 
question.  Business  interest  began  to  pour  cold  water  on 
the  hottest  embers  which  the  Civil  War  had  left  behind. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  REVOLUTION  IN  POLITICS  AND   LAW 

THE  economic  revolution  that  followed  the  War,  the 
swift  and  potent  upswing  of  capitalism,  and  the  shifting 
of  political  power  from  the  South  to  the  North  made 
their  impress  upon  every  branch  of  the  Federal  Govern 
ment.  Senators  of  the  old  school,  Clay,  Webster,  Cal- 
houn,  Roger  Baldwin,  John  P.  Hale,  James  Mason, 
and  Jefferson  Davis  were  succeeded  by  the  apostles  of 
the  new  order :  Roscoe  Conkling  and  Thomas  Platt, 
James  Donald  Cameron,  Leland  Stanford,  George 
Hearst,  Arthur  P.  Gorman,  William  D.  Washburn,  John 
R.  McPherson,  Henry  B.  Payne,  Matthew  S.  Quay, 
Philetus  Sawyer,  John  H.  Mitchell,  and  James  G. 
Blaine.  The  new  Senate  was  composed  of  men  of 
affairs  —  practical  men,  who  organized  gigantic  enter- 
prizes,  secured  possession  of  natural  resources  and 
franchises,  collected  and  applied  capital  on  a  large  scale 
to  new  business  undertakings,  built  railways,  established 
cities  with  the  advancing  line  of  the  western  frontier  — 
or  represented  such  men  as  counsel  in  the  courts  of  law. 

Not  many  of  them  were  great  orators  or  widely  known 
as  profound  students  of  politics  in  its  historical  and 
comparative  aspects.  A  few,  like  Blaine,  Hoar,  and 
Conkling,  studied  the  classic  oratory  of  the  older  genera- 

50 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  POLITICS  AND  LAW   51 

tion  and  sought  to  apply  to  the  controverted  issues  of 
th(i  hour  that  studious,  orderly,  and  sustained  elo 
quence  which  had  adorned  the  debates  of  earlier  years ; 
but  the  major  portion  cultivated  only  the  arts  of  man 
agement  and  Negotiation.  Few  of  them  seem  to  have 
given  any  thought  to  the  lessons  to  be  learned  from 
European  politics.  On  the  contrary,  they  apparently 
joined  with  the  multitude  in  the  assumption  that  we 
had  everything  to  teach  Europe  and  nothing  to  learn. 
Bismarck  was  to  them,  if  we  may  judge  from  their 
spoken  words,  simply  a  great  politician  and  the  hero  of 
a  war;  the  writings  of  German  economists,  Wagner  and 
Schmoller,  appear  never  to  have  penetrated  their  studies. 
That  they  foresaw  in  the  seventies  and  eighties  the  turn 
that  politics  was  destined  to  take  is  nowhere  evident. 
They  commanded  respect  and  admiration  for  their 
practical  achievements;  but  it  is  questionable  whether 
the  names  of  more  than  two  or  three  will  be  known  a 
century  hence,  save  to  the  antiquarian. 

Of  this  group,  Roscoe  Conkling  was  undoubtedly 
typical,  just  as  Marcus  A.  Hanna  represented  the  domi 
nant  politicians  of  a  later  time.  He  was  an  able  lawyer 
and  an  orator  of  some  quality,  but  of  no  permanent  fame. 
He  took  his  seat  in  the  Senate  in  1867  and  according  to 
his  biographer  "during  the  remainder  of  his  life  his 
legal  practice  was  chiefly  connected  with  corporations 
that  were  litigants  in  the  district  and  circuit  courts  of 
the  United  States,"  l  —  the  judges  of  which  courts  he 
was,  as  Senator,  instrumental  in  appointing.  His 
practice  was  lucrative  for  his  day,  amounting  to  some 
1  A.  R.  Conkling,  Life  of  Roscoe  Conkling,  p.  297. 


52       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

$50,000  a  year.1  He  counted  among  his  clients  the 
first  great  capitalists  of  the  country.  When  he  vas 
forced  to  retire  from  New  York  politics,  "the  first 
person  who  came  to  see  him  on  business  was  M:\  Jay 
Gould,  who  waited  upon  him  early  one  morning  at  his 
hotel."  2  He  was  counsel  for  Mr.  Collis  P.  Hunting- 
ton  in  his  contest  against  the  state  legislation  which 
railway  interests  deemed  unjust  and  unconstitutional.3 
He  was  among  the  keen  group  of  legal  thinkers  who 
invoked  and  extended  the  principle  of  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  to  cover  all  the  varieties  of  legislation 
affecting  corporate  interests  adversely.4 

Criticism  of  the  Republican  party,  and  particularly 
of  the  policies  for  which  he  stood,  Mr.  Conkling  regarded 
as  little  short  of  treason.  For  example,  when  Mr. 
George  William  Curtis,  in  the  New  York  state  conven 
tion  of  1877,  sought  to  endorse  the  administration  of 
President  Hayes,  whose  independence  in  office  had  been 
troublesome  to  Mr.  Conkling,  the  latter  returned  in  a 
passionate  attack  on  the  whole  party  of  opposition : 
"Who  are  these  men  who  in  newspapers  and  elsewhere 
are  'cracking  their  whips'  over  Republicans  and  playing 
schoolmaster  to  the  Republican  party  and  its  conscience 
and  convictions.  They  are  of  various  sorts  and  condi 
tions.  Some  of  them  are  the  man-milliners,  the  dilet 
tanti  and  carpet  knights  of  politics,  men  whose  efforts 
have  been  expended  in  denouncing  and  ridiculing  and 
accusing  honest  men.  .  .  .  Some  of  these  worthies 
masquerade  as  reformers  and  their  vocation  and  ministry 

1  A.  R.  Conkling,  Life  of  Roscoe  Conkling,  p.  699.          2  Ibid.,  p.  671. 
3  Ibid.,  pp.  679  ff.  4 gee  below,  p.  57. 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  POLITICS  AND  LAW   53 

is  to  lament  the  sins  of  other  people.  Their  stock  in 
trade  is  rancid,  canting  self-righteousness.  They  are 
wolves  in  sheep's  clothing.  Their  real  object  is  office 
and  plunder.  When  Dr.  Johnson  denned  patriotism  as 
the  last  refuge  of  a  scoundrel,  he  was  then  unconscious 
of  the  then  undeveloped  capabilities  of  the  word  're 
form.'"1 

The  political  philosophy  of  this  notable  group  of 
political  leaders  was  that  of  their  contemporaries  in 
England,  the  Cobden-Bright  school.  They  believed  in 
the  widest  possible  extension  of  the  principle  of  private 
property,  and  the  narrowest  possible  restriction  of  state 
interference,  except  to  aid  private  property  to  increase 
its  gains.  They  held  that  all  of  the  natural  resources 
of  the  country  should  be  transferred  to  private  hands  as 
speedily  as  possible,  at  a  nominal  charge,  or  no  charge 
at  all,  and  developed  with  dashing  rapidity.  They  also 
believed  that  the  great  intangible  social  property  created 
by  community  life,  such  as  franchises  for  street  rail 
ways,  gas,  and  electricity,  should  be  transformed  into 
private  property.  They  supplemented  their  philosophy 
of  property  by  a  philosophy  of  law  and  politics,  which 
looked  upon  state  interference,  except  to  preserve  order, 
and  aid  railways  and  manufacturers  in  their  enterprises, 
as  an  intrinsic  evil  to  be  resisted  at  every  point,  and  I 
they  developed  a  system  of  jurisprudence  which,  as 
Senators  having  the  confirming  power  in  appointments 
and  as  counsel  for  corporations  before  the  courts  of  the 
United  States,  they  succeeded  in  transforming  into  judi 
cial  decisions.  Some  of  them  were  doubtless  corrupt, 

1  Ibid.,  p.  540. 


54       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

as  was  constantly  charged,  but  the  real  explanation  of 
their  resistance  to  government  intervention  is  to  be 
found  in  their  philosophy,  which,  although  consonant 
with  their  private  interests,  they  identified  with  public 
good. 

Writing  Laissez  Faire  into  the  Constitution 

Inasmuch  as  the  attacks  on  private  rights  in  property, 
franchises,  and  corporate  privileges  came  principally 
from  the  state  legislatures,  it  was  necessary  to  find  some 
way  to  subject  them  to  legal  control  —  some  juristic 
process  for  translating  laissez  faire  into  a  real  restrain 
ing  force.  These  leading  statesmen  and  lawyers  were 
not  long  in  finding  the  way.  The  Federal  courts  were 
obviously  the  proper  instrumentalities,  and  the  broad 
restrictions  laid  upon  the  states  by  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  no  less  obviously  afforded  the  constitutional 
foundation  for  the  science  of  legislative  nihilism.  "No 
state,"  ran  the  significant  words  of  that  Amendment, 
"  shall  make  or  enforce  any  law  which  shall  abridge  the 
privileges  or  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  United  States ; 
nor  shall  any  state  deprive  any  person  of  life,  liberty,  or 
property  without  due  process  of  law;  nor  deny  to  any 
person  within  its  jurisdiction  the  equal  protection  of  the 
laws." 

What  unseen  implications  lay  within  these  phrases 
the  most  penetrating  thinkers  divined  at  once.  Protest 
was  made  by  the  New  Jersey  legislature  against  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment  in  1866  on  the  ground  that  it 
would  destroy  all  the  essential  rights  of  a  state  to  control 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  POLITICS  AND  LAW   55 

its  internal  affairs;  and  such  opinion  was  widespread. 
But  the  most  common  view  was  to  the  effect  that  the 
Amendment  would  be  used  principally  to  surround  the 
newly  emancipated  slaves  with  safeguards  against  their 
former  masters  who  might  be  tempted  to  restore  serf 
dom  under  apprentice  and  penal  laws  and  other  legal 
guises.  Still  there  is  plenty  of  evidence  to  show  that 
those  who  framed  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  and 
pushed  it  through  Congress  had  in  mind  a  far  wider 
purpose  —  that  of  providing  a  general  restraining  clause 
for  state  legislatures. 

The  problem  of  how  best  to  check  the  assaults  of  state 
legislatures  on  vested  rights  was  not  new  when  the  Four 
teenth  Amendment  was  adopted.  On  the  contrary,  it 
was  one  of  the  first  concerns  of  the  Convention  of  1787 
which  drafted  the  original  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  it  was  thought  by  the  framers  that  security 
had  been  attained  by  forbidding  states  to  emit  bills  of 
credit  and  make  laws  impairing  the  obligation  of  con 
tract.  Under  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  these  clauses 
were  so  generously  interpreted  as  to  repel  almost  any 
attack  which  a  state  legislature  might  make  on  acquired 
rights.  However,  in  the  closing  years  of  Marshall's 
service,  the  Supreme  Court,  then  passing  into  the 
hands  of  states'  rights  justices,  rendered  an  opinion  in 
the  case  of  Ogden  v.  Saunders,  which  clearly  held  that 
the  contract  clause  did  not  prevent  the  legislature  from 
stipulating  that  future  contracts  might  be  practically  at 
its  mercy.  When  a  legislature  provides  by  general  law 
that  all  charters  of  corporations  are  subject  to  repeal 
and  alteration,  such  provision  becomes  a  part  of  all  new 


56       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

contracts.  Marshall  delivered  in  this  case  a  vigorous 
and  cogent  dissenting  opinion  in  which  he  pointed  out 
that  the  decision  had  in  effect  destroyed  the  virtue  of  the 
obligation  of  contract  clause. 

The  case  of  Ogden  v.  Saunders  was  decided  in  1827. 
Between  that  year  and  the  Civil  War  the  beginnings  of 
corporate  enterprise  were  securely  laid  in  the  United 
States;  and  the  legislatures  of  the  several  states  began 
the  regulation  of  corporations  from  one  motive  or  an 
other,  sometimes  for  the  purpose  of  blackmailing  them 
and  sometimes  for  the  laudable  purpose  of  protecting 
public  interests.  At  all  events,  large  propertied  concerns 
began  to  feel  that  they  could  not  have  a  free  hand  in 
developing  their  enterprises  or  enjoy  any  genuine  security 
unless  the  legislatures  of  the  states  were,  by  some  con 
stitutional  provision,  brought  again  under  strict  Federal 
judicial  control. 

The  opportunity  to  secure  this  judicial  control  was 
afforded  during  the  Civil  War  when  the  radical  Repub 
licans  were  demanding  Federal  protection  for  the  newly 
emancipated  slaves  of  the  South.  The  drastic  legis 
lation  relative  to  negroes  adopted  by  the  southern  states 
at  the  close  of  the  War  showed  that  even  in  spite  of  the 
Thirteenth  Amendment  a  substantial  bondage  could  be 
reestablished  under  the  color  of  criminal,  apprentice, 
and  vagrant  legislation.  The  friends  of  the  negroes, 
therefore,  determined  to  put  the  substantial  rights  of 
life,  liberty,  and  property  beyond  the  interference  of 
state  legislatures  forever,  and  secure  to  all  persons  the 
equal  protection  of  the  law. 

Accordingly,  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  was  adopted, 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  POLITICS  AND  LAW   57 

enunciating  the  broad  legal  and  political  doctrine  that 
no  state  "shall  abridge  the  privileges  or  immunity  of 
citizens  of  the  United  States;  nor  shall  any  state  de 
prive  any  person  of  life,  liberty,  or  property  without 
due  process  of  law ;  nor  deny  to  any  person  within  its 
jurisdiction  the  equal  protection  of  the  law." 

Here  was  a  restriction  laid  upon  state  legislatures 
which  might  be  substantially  limitless  in  its  application, 
in  the  hands  of  a  judiciary  wishing  to  place  the  broadest 
possible  interpretation  upon  it.    What  are  privileges 
and  immunities  ?    What  are  life,  liberty,  and  property  ? 
What  is  due  process  of  law  ?    What  is  the  equal  protec 
tion  of  the  law?     Does  the  term  "person"  include  not 
only  natural  persons  but  also  artificial  persons,  namely, 
corporations?     That   the  reconstruction   committee  of 
Congress   which   framed    the   instrument   intended    to 
include  within  the  scope  of  this  generous  provision  not 
only  the  negro  struggling  upward  from  bondage,  but 
also  corporations  and  business  interests  struggling  for 
emancipation   from   legislative   interference,    has    been 
often  asserted.     In  arguing  before  the  Supreme  Court 
in   the   San   Matteo   County   case,   on   December    19, 
1882,  Mr.  Roscpe  Conkling,  who  had  been  a  member  of 
the  committee  which  drafted  the  Fourteenth  Amend 
ment,  unfolded  for  the  first  time  the  deep  purpose  of  the 
committee,  and  showed  from  the  journal  of  that  com 
mittee  that  it  was  not  their  intention  to  confine  the 
amendment  merely  to  the  protection  of  the  colored  race. 
In  the  course  of  his  argument,  Mr.  Conkling  remarked, 
"At  the  time  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  was  ratified, 
as  the  records  of  the  two  Houses  will  show,  individuals 


58       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

and  joint-stock  companies  were  appealing  for  congres 
sional  and  administrative  protection  against  invidious 
and  discriminating  state  and  local  taxes.  One  instance 
was  that  of  an  express  company,  whose  stock  was  owned 
largely  by  citizens  of  the  State  of  New  York,  who  came 
with  petitions  and  bills  seeking  Acts  of  Congress  to  aid 
them  in  resisting  what  they  deemed  oppressive  taxation 
„  in  two  states,  and  oppressive  and  ruinous  rules  of  dam 
ages  applied  under  state  laws.  That  complaints  of 
oppression  in  respect  of  property  and  other  rights,  made 
by  citizens  of  Northern  States  who  took  up  residence 
in  the  South,  were  rife,  in  and  out  of  Congress,  none  of 
us  can  forget ;  that  complaints  of  oppression  in  various 
forms,  of  white  men  in  the  South,  —  of  i  Union  men/ 
-  were  heard  on  every  side,  I  need  not  remind  the 
Court.  The  war  and  its  results,  the  condition  of  the 
freedmen,  and  the  manifest  duty  owed  to  them,  no  doubt 
brought  on  the  occasion  for  constitutional  amendment; 
but  when  the  occasion  came  and  men  set  themselves  to 
the  task,  the  accumulated  evils  falling  within  the  pur 
view  of  the  work  were  the  surrounding  circumstances, 
in  the  light  of  which  they  strove  to  increase  and 
strengthen  the  safeguards  of  the  Constitution  and 
laws."  1 

In  spite  of  important  testimony  to  the  effect  that 
those  who  drafted  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  really 
intended  "to  nationalize  liberty,"  that  is  laissez  faire, 

1  Taylor,  Origin  and  Growth  of  the  American  Constitution,  p.  355.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  Conkling,  who  was  a  member  of  the  committee  that 
drafted  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  voted  against  these  provisions  in 
Committee. 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  POLITICS  AND  LAW    59 

against  state  legislatures,  the  Supreme  Court  at  first 
refused  to  accept  this  broad  interpretation,  and  it  was 
not  until  after  several  of  the  judges  of  the  old  states' 
rights  school  had  been  replaced  by  judges  of  the  new 
school  that  the  claims  of  Mr.  Conkling's  group  as  to 
the  Fourteenth  Amendment  were  embodied  in  copious 
judicial  decisions. 

The  Slaughter- House  Cases 

The  first  judicial  interpretation  of  the  significant 
phrases  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  which  were 
afterward  to  be  the  basis  of  judicial  control  over  state 
economic  legislation  of  every  kind  was  made  by  the 
Supreme  Court  in  the  Slaughter-House  cases  in  1873  - 
five  years  after  that  Amendment  had  been  formally 
ratified.  These  particular  cases,  it  is  interesting  to 
note,  like  practically  all  other  important  cases  arising 
under  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  had  no  relation  what 
ever  to  the  newly  emancipated  slaves ;  but,  on  the 
contrary,  dealt  with  the  regulation  of  business  enter 
prises. 

In  1869,  the  legislature  of  Louisiana  passed  an  act 
designed  to  protect  tfie~IieliinF~of  the  people  of  New 
Orleans  and  certain  other  parishes.  This  act  created 
a  corporation  for  the  purpose  of  slaughtering  animals 
within  that  city,  forbade  the  establishment  of  any  other 
slaughterhouses  or  abattoirs  within  the  municipality, 
and  conferred  the  sole  and  exclusive  privilege  of  conduct 
ing  the  live-stock  landing  and  slaughterhouse  business, 
under  the  limitations  of  the  act,  upon  the  company  thus 


60       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

created.  The  company,  however,  was  required  by  the 
law  to  permit  any  persons  who  wished  to  do  so  to 
slaughter  in  its  houses  and  to  make  full  provision  for 
all  such  slaughtering  at  a  reasonable  compensation. 
This  drastic  measure,  the  report  of  the  case  states,  was 
denounced  "not  only  as  creating  a  monopoly  and  con 
ferring  odious  and  exclusive  privileges  upon  a  small 
number  of  persons  at  the  expense  of  the  great  body  of 
the  community  of  New  Orleans,  but  ...  it  deprives  a 
large  and  meritorious  class  of  citizens  —  the  whole  of 
the  butchers  of  the  city  —  of  the  right  to  exercise  their 
trade,  the  business  to  which  they  have  been  trained  and 
on  which  they  depend  for  the  support  of  themselves  and 
their  families." 

The  opinion  of  the  court  was  rendered  by  Mr.  Justice 
Miller.  The  Justice  opened  by  making  a  few  remarks 
upon  the  "police  power,"  in  the  course  of  which  he  said 
that  the  regulation  of  slaughtering  fell  within  the  borders 
of  that  mysterious  domain  and  without  doubt  constituted 
one  of  the  powers  enjoyed  by  all  states  previous  to  the 
adoption  of  the  Civil  War  amendments.  After  com 
menting  upon  the  great  responsibility  devolved  upon 
the  Court  in  construing  the  Thirteenth  and  Fourteenth 
amendments  and  remarking  on  the  careful  deliberation 
with  which  the  judges  had  arrived  at  their  conclusions, 
Justice  Miller  then  turned  to  an  examination  of  the 
historical  purpose  which  underlay  the  adoption  of  the 
amendments  in  question.  After  his  recapitulation  of 
recent  events,  he  concluded  :  "On  the  most  casual  exami 
nation  of  the  language  of  these  amendments,  no  one  can 
fail  to  be  impressed  with  the  one  pervading  purpose 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  POLITICS  AND  LAW   61 

found  in  them  all,  lying  at  the  foundation  of  each,  and 
without  which  none  of  them  would  have  been  even  sug 
gested;  we  mean  the  freedom  of  the  slave  race,  the 
security  and  firm  establishment  of  that  freedom,  and  the 
protection  of  the  newly-made  freeman  and  citizen  from 
the  oppression  of  those  who  had  formerly  exercised  un 
limited  dominion  over  him.  It  is  true  that  only  the 
Fifteenth  Amendment,  in  terms,  mentions  the  negro  by 
speaking  of  his  color  and  his  slavery.  But  it  is  just  as 
true  that  each  of  the  other  articles  was  addressed  to 
the  grievances  of  that  race  and  designed  to  remedy  them 
as  the  Fifteenth.  We  do  not  say  that  no  one  else  but 
the  negro  can  share  in  this  protection.  Both  the  lan 
guage  and  spirit  of  these  articles  are  to  have  their  fair 
and  just  weight  in  any  question  of  construction.  .  .  . 
What  we  do  wish  to  say  and  what  we  wish  to  be  under 
stood  as  saying  is,  that  in  any  fair  and  just  construction 
of  any  section  or  phrase  of  these  amendments,  it  is 
necessary  to  look  to  the  purpose,  which  as  we  have 
said  was  the  pervading  spirit  of  them  all,  the  evil  which 
they  were  designed  to  remedy,  and  the  process  of  con 
tinued  addition  to  the  Constitution  until  that  purpose 
was  supposed  to  be  accomplished  as  far  as  constitutional 
law  can  accomplish  it." 

Justice  Miller  dismissed  with  a  tone  of  impatience  the 
idea  of  the  counsel  for  the  plaintiffs  in  error  that  the* 
Louisiana  statute  in  question  imposed  an  "  involuntary 
servitude"  forbidden  by  the  Thirteenth  Amendment. 
"To  withdraw  the  mind,"  he  said,  "from  the  contem 
plation  of  this  grand  yet  simple  declaration  of  the 
personal  freedom  of  all  the  human  race  within  the  juris- 


62       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

diction  of  this  government  —  a  declaration  designed  to 
establish  the  freedom  of  four  million  slaves  —  and  with 
a  microscopic  search  endeavor  to  find  it  in  reference  to 
servitudes  which  may  have  been  attached  to  property  in 
certain  localities,  requires  an  effort,  to  say  the  least  of  it." 

In  Justice  Miller's  long  opinion  there  is  no  hint  of 
that  larger  and  more  comprehensive  purpose  entertained 
by  the  framers  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  which  was 
asserted  by  Mr.  Conkling  a  few  years  later  in  his  argu 
ment  before  the  Supreme  Court.  If  he  was  aware  that 
the  framers  had  in  mind  not  only  the  protection  of  the 
freedmen  in  their  newly  won  rights,  but  also  the  defense 
of  corporations  and  business  enterprises  generally 
against  state  legislation,  he  gave  no  indication  of  the 
fact.  There  is  nowhere  in  his  opinion  any  sign  that  he 
saw  the  broad  economic  implications  of  the  Amendment 
which  he  was  expounding  for  the  first  time  in  the  name 
of  the  Court.  On  the  contrary,  his  language  and  the 
opinion  reached  in  the  case  show  that  the  judges  were 
either  not  cognizant  of  the  new  economic  and  political 
duty  placed  upon  them,  or,  in  memory  of  the  states' 
rights  traditions  which  they  had  entertained,  were  un 
willing  to  apply  the  Thirteenth  and  Fourteenth  amend 
ments  in  such  a  manner  as  narrowly  to  restrict  the 
legislative  power  of  a  commonwealth. 

In  taking  up  that  clause  of  the  Fourteenth  Amend 
ment  which  provides  that  no  state  shall  make  or  enforce 
any  law  abridging  the  privileges  or  immunities  of  citi 
zens  of  the  United  States,  Justice  Miller  declared  that 
it  was  not  the  purpose  of  that  provision  to  transfer  the 
security  and  protection  of  all  fundamental  civil  rights 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  POLITICS  AND  LAW   63 

i 
from  the  state  government  to  the  Federal  Government. 

A  citizen  of  the  United  States  as  such,  he  said,  has  cer 
tain  privileges  and  immunities,  and  it  was  these  and  these 
only  which  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  contemplated. 
He  enumerated  some  of  them :  the  right  of  the  citizen 
to  come  to  the  seat  of  government,  to  assert  any  claim 
he  may  have  upon  that  government,  to  transact  any 
business  he  may  have  with  it,  to  seek  its  protection, 
share  its  offices,  engage  in  administering  its  functions, 
to  have  free  access  to  its  seaports,  subtreasuries,  land 
offices,  and  courts  of  justice,  to  use  the  navigable  waters 
of  the  United  States,  to  assemble  peaceably  with  his 
fellow  citizens  and  petition  for  redress  of  grievances, 
and  to  enjoy  the  privileges  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus. 
It  was  rights  of  this  character,  the  learned  justice  argued, . 
and  not  all  the  fundamental  rights  of  person  and  prop 
erty  which  had  been  acquired  in  the  evolution  of  Anglo- 
Saxon  jurisprudence,  that  were  placed  by  the  Four 
teenth  Amendment  under  the  protection  of  the  Federal 
Government. 

Within  this  view,  all  the  ordinary  civil  rights  enjoyed 
by  citizens  were  still  within  the  control  of  the  organs  of 
the  state  government  and  not  within  Federal  protection 
at  all.  If  the  privileges  and  immunities,  brought  within 
the  protection  of  the  Federal  Government  by  the  Four 
teenth  Amendment,  were  intended  to  embrace  the  whole 
domain  of  personal  and  property  rights,  then,  contended 
the  justice,  the  Supreme  Court  would  be  constituted 
"a  perpetual  censor  upon  all  legislation  of  the  states, 
on  the  civil  rights  of  their  own  citizens,  with  authority 
to  nullify  such  as  it  did  not  approve  as  consistent  with 


64       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

those  rights  as  Ihey  existed  at  the  time  of  the  adoption 
of  this  Amendment.  .  .  .  We  are  convinced  that  no 
such  results  were  intended  by  the  Congress  which  pro 
posed  these  amendments  nor  by  the  legislatures  which 
ratified  them." 

In  two  short  paragraphs,  Justice  Miller  disposed  of 
the  contention  of  the  plaintiffs  in  error  to  the  effect 
that  the  Louisiana  statute  deprived  the  plaintiffs  of  their 
property  without  due  process  of  law.  He  remarked  that 
inasmuch  as  the  phraseology  of  this  clause  was  also  to 
be  found  in  the  Fifth  Amendment  and  in  some  form  in 
the  constitutions  of  nearly  all  of  the  states,  it  had  re 
ceived  satisfactory  judicial  interpretation;  "and  it  is 
sufficient  to  say,"  he  concluded  on  this  point,  "that 
under  no  construction  of  that  provision  that  we  have 
ever  seen  or  any  that  we  deem  admissible,  can  the  re 
straint  imposed  by  the  state  of  Louisiana  upon  the  exer 
cise  of  their  trade  by  the  butchers  of  New  Orleans  be 
held  to  be  a  deprivation  of  private  property  within  the 
meaning  of  that  provision." 

Coming  now  to  that  clause  requiring  every  state  to 
give  all  persons  within  its  jurisdiction  equal  protection 
of  the  laws,  Justice  Miller  indulged  in  the  false  prophecy : 
"We  doubt  very  much  whether  any  action  of  a  state 
not  directed  by  way  of  discrimination  against  the  negroes 
as  a  class  or  on  account  of  their  race  will  ever  be  held  to 
come  within  the  purview  of  this  provision."  An  emer 
gency  might  arise,  he  admitted,  but  he  found  no  such  a 
one  in  the  case  before  him.  •  'i 

Concluding  his  opinion,  he  expressed  the  view  that 
the  American  Federal  system  had  come  out  of  the  Civil 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  POLITICS  AND  LAW   65 

War  with  its  main  features  unchanged,  and  that  it  was 
the  duty  of  the  Supreme  Court  then  as  always  to  hold 
with  a  steady  and  an  even  hand  the  balance  between 
state  and  Federal  power.  "  Under  the  pressure  of  all 
the  excited  feeling  growing  out  of  the  War,"  he  remarked, 
"our  statesmen  have  still  believed  that  the  existence  of 
the  states  with  powers  for  domestic  and  local  government, 
including  the  regulation  of  civil  rights  —  the  rights  of 
person  and  property  —  was  essential  to  the  perfect 
working  of  our  complex  form  of  government,  though 
they  have  thought  proper  to  impose  additional  limita 
tions  upon  the  states  and  to  confer  additional  power  on 
that  of  the  nation." 

Under  this  strict  interpretation  of  the  Thirteenth 
and  Fourteenth  amendments,  all  the  fundamental 
rights  of  persons  and  property  remained  subject  to  the 
state  governments  substantially  in  the  same  way  as 
before  the  Civil  War.  The  Supreme  Court  thus  could 
not  become  the  final  arbiter  and  control  the  social  and 
economic  legislation  of  states  at  every  point.  Those 
champions  of  the  amendments  who  looked  to  them  to 
establish  Federal  judicial  supremacy  for  the  defense  of  cor 
porations  and  business  enterprises  everywhere  through 
out  the  American  empire  were  sadly  disappointed. 

Nowhere  was  that  disappointment  more  effectively 
and  more  cogently  stated  than  in  the  opinions  of  the 
judges  who  dissented  from  the  doctrines  announced 
by  the  majority  of  the  court.  Chief  Justice  Chase  and 
Justices  Field,  Bradley,  and  Swayne  refused  to  accept 
the  interpretation  and  the  conclusions  reached  by  the 
majority,  and  the  last  three  judges  wrote  separate  opin- 


66       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

ions  of  their  own  expressing  their  grounds  for  dissent 
ing.  The  first  of  these,  Justice  Field,  contended  that 
the  Louisiana  statute  in  question  could  not  legitimately 
come  under  the  police  power  and  was  in  violation  of  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment,  inasmuch  as  it  denied  to 
citizens  of  the  United  States  the  fundamental  rights 
which  belonged  to  citizens  of  all  free  governments  — 
protection  against  monopolies  and  equality  of  rights  in 
the  pursuit  of  the  ordinary  avocations  of  life.  In  his 
opinion,  the  privileges  and  immunities  put  under  the 
supervision  of  the  Federal  Government  by  the  Four 
teenth  Amendment  comprised  generally  "  protection 
by  the  government,  the  enjoyment  of  life  and  liberty, 
with  the  right  to  acquire  and  possess  property  of  every 
kind,  and  to  pursue  and  obtain  happiness  and  safety, 
subject,  nevertheless,  to  such  restraint  as  the  government 
may  justly  prescribe  for  the  general  good  of  the  whole." 
In  other  words,  Justice  Field  would  have  carried  the 
Amendment  beyond  the  specific  enumeration  of  any 
definitely  ascertained  legal  rights  into  the  field  of  moral 
law,  which,  in  final  analysis,  would  have  meant  the 
subjection  of  the  state  legislation  solely  to  the  discretion 
of  the  judicial  conscience.  The  future,  as  we  shall  see, 
was  with  Justice  Field. 

In  the  opinion  of  Justice  Bradley,  the  Louisiana 
statute  not  only  deprived  persons  of  the  equal  protec 
tion  of  the  laws,  but  also  of  liberty  and  property  —  the 
right  of  choosing,  in  the  adoption  of  lawful  employments, 
being  a  portion  of  their  liberty,  and  their  occupation 
being  their  property.  In  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Justice 
Swayne,  who  dissented  also,  the  word  liberty  as  used  in 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  POLITICS  AND  LAW   67 

the  Fourteenth  Amendment  embodied  freedom  from 
all  restraints  except  such  as  were  "  justly"  imposed  by 
law.  In  his  view,  property  included  everything  that 
had  an  exchange  value,  including  labor,  and  the  right 
to  make  property  available  was  next  in  importance  to 
the  rights  of  life  and  liberty. 

The  Granger  Cases 

Three  years  after  the  decision  in  the  Slaughter-House 
cases,  the  Supreme  Court  again  refused  to  interpret  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment  so  broadly  as  to  hold  unconsti 
tutional  a  state  statute  regulating  business  undertakings. 
This  case^Munn^.JIiqois,  decided  in  1876,  involved 
the  validity  of  a  statute  passed  under  the  constitution 
of  that  state,  which  declared  all  elevators  where  grain 
was  stored  to  be  public  warehouses  and  subjected  them 
to  strict  regulation,  including  the  establishment  of  fixed 
maximum  charges.  It  was  contended  by  the  plaintiffs 
in  error,  Munn  and  Scott,  that  the  statute  violated  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment  in  two  respects:  (i)  that  the 
business  attempted  to  be  regulated  was  not  a  public 
calling  and  was,  therefore,  totally  outside  of  the  regu 
latory  or  police  power  of  the  state ;  and  (2)  that  even  if 
the  business  was  conceded  to  be  public  in  character, 
and  therefore  by  the  rule  of  the  common  law  was 
permitted  to  exact  only  " reasonable"  charges  for  its 
services,  nevertheless  the  determination  of  what  was 
reasonable  belonged  to  the  judicial  branch  of  the  gov 
ernment  and  could  not  be  made  by  the  legislature 
without  violating  the  principle  of  "due  process." 


68       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

Both  of  these  contentions  were  rejected  by  the  Court, 
and  the  constitutionality  of  the  Illinois  statute  was 
upheld.  The  opinion  of  the  Court  was  written  by  Chief 
Justice  Waite,  who  undertook  an  elaborate  examination 
of  the  "due  process"  clause  of  the  Fourteenth  Amend 
ment.  The  principle  of  this  Amendment,  he  said,  though 
new  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  is  as  old 
as  civilized  government  itself;  it  is  found  in  Magna 
Carta  in  substance  if  not  in  form,  in  nearly  all  of  the 
state  constitutions,  and  in  the  Fifth  Amendment  to  the 
Federal  Constitution.  In  order  to  ascertain,  therefore, 
what  power  legislatures  enjoyed  under  the  new  amend 
ment,  it  was  only  necessary  to  inquire  into  the  limitations 
which  had  been  historically  imposed  under  the  due 
process  clause  in  England  and  the  United  States;  and 
after  an  examination  of  some  cases  in  point  the  Chief 
Justice  came  to  the  conclusion  that  "down  to  the  time 
of  the  adoption  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  it  was 
not  supposed  that  statutes  regulating  the  use  or  even  the 
price  of  the  use  of  private  property  necessarily  deprived 
an  owner  of  his  property  without  due  process  of  law." 
When  private  property  "is  affected  with  public  interest" 
and  is  used  in  a  manner  to  make  it  of  public  conse 
quence,  the  public  is  in  fact  granted  an  interest  in  that 
use,  and  the  owner  of  the  property  in  question  "must 
submit  to  be  controlled  by  the  public  for  the  common 
good,  to  the  extent  of  the  interest  he  has  thus  created." 

But  it  was  insisted  on  behalf  of  the  plaintiffs  that  the 
owner  of  property  is  entitled  to  a  reasonable  compensa 
tion  for  its  use  even  when  it  is  clothed  with  the  public 
interest,  and  that  the  determination  of  what  is  reasonable 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  POLITICS  AND  LAW   69 

is  a  judicial,  not  a  legislative,  matter.  To  this  Chief 
Justice  Waite  replied  that  the  usual  practice  had  been 
otherwise.  "In  countries  where  the  common  law  pre 
vails,"  he  said,  "it  has  been  customary  from  time 
immemorial  for  the  legislature  to  declare  what  shall 
be  a  reasonable  compensation  under  such  circumstances, 
or  perhaps  more  properly  speaking  to  fix  a  maximum 
beyond  which  any  charge  made  would  be  unreasonable. 
.  .  .  The  controlling  fact  is  the  power  to  regulate  at 
all.  If  that  exists,  the  right  to  establish  the  maximum 
of  charge  as  one  of  the  means  of  regulation  is  implied. 
In  fact,  the  common  law  rule  which  requires  the  charge 
to  be  reasonable  is  itself  a  regulation  as  to  price.  .  .  . 
To  limit  the  rate  of  charge  for  services  rendered  in  a 
public  employment,  or  for  the  use  of  property  in  which 
the  public  has  an  interest,  is  only  changing  a  regulation 
which  existed  before.  It  establishes  no  new  principle 
in  the  law,  but  only  gives  a  new  effect  to  an  old  one. 
We  know  that  this  is  a  power  which  may  be  abused; 
but  that  is  no  argument  against  its  existence.  For 
protection  against  abuses  by  legislatures  the  people  must 
resort  to  the  polls,  not  to  the  courts"  l 

1  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  demand  of  the  warehousemen  on  the 
second  point  was  not  for  a  judicial  review  of  the  reasonableness  of  a  rate 
fixed  by  the  legislature,  but  a  total  denial  of  the  power  of  a  legislature  to 
act  in  the  matter.  The  question  of  the  propriety  of  a  judicial  review  of 
the  reasonableness  of  the  rates  in  question  was  not  raised  in  the  pleadings. 
It  was  not  difficult,  therefore,  for  judges  in  subsequent  cases  in  which 
the  question  of  judicial  review  was  squarely  raised  to  explain  away  as 
mere  dictum  this  solemn  statement  by  Chief  Justice  Waite  to  the  effect 
that  the  power  of  the  legislature  to  regulate  being  conceded,  the  deter 
mination  of  the  legislature  was  binding  on  the  courts  and  not  subject  to 
review. 


yo       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

The  principle  involved  in  the  Mimn  case  also  came  up 
in  the  same  year  (1876)  in  Peik  v.  Chicago  and  North 
western  Railroad  Company,  in  which  Chief  Justice  Waite, 
speaking  of  an  act  of  Wisconsin  limiting  passenger  and 
freight  charges  on  railroads  in  the  state,  said:  "As  to 
the  claim  that  the  courts  must  decide  what  is  reasonable 
and  not  the  legislature,  this  is  not  new  to  this  case.  It 
has  been  fully  considered  in  Munn  v.  Illinois.  Where 
property  has  been  clothed  with  a  public  interest,  the 
legislature  may  fix  a  limit  to  that  which  shall  be  in  law 
reasonable  for  its  use.  This  limit  binds  the  courts  as 
well  as  the  people.  If  it  has  been  improperly  fixed,  the 
legislature,  not  the  courts,  must  be  appealed  to  for  the 
change." 

The  total  results  of  the  several  Granger  cases,  decided 
in  1876,  may  be  summed  up  as  follows  : 

(1)  That   the   regulatory   power   of   the   state   over 
" public  callings"  is  not  limited  to  those  businesses  over 
which  it  was  exercised  at  common  law,  but  extends  to 
any  business  in  which,  because  of  its  necessary  character 
and  the  possibilities  for  extortion  afforded  by  monop 
olistic  control,  the  public  has  an  interest. 

(2)  That  such  regulatory  power  will  not  be  presumed 
to  have  been  contracted  away  by  any  legislature,  unless 
such  intention  is  unequivocally  expressed. 

(3)  That  the  exercise  of  such  regulatory  power  belongs 
to  the  legislature,  and  not  to  the  judiciary. 

(4)  And  the  dictum  that  the  judiciary  can  grant  no 
relief  from  an  unjust  exercise  of  this  regulatory  power  by 
the  legislature. 

Although  the  denial  of  the  right  of  the  judiciary  to 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  POLITICS  AND  LAW   71 

review  the  " reasonableness"  of  a  rate  fixed  by  the  legis 
lature  in  the  Granger  cases  had  been  dictum,  a  case  was 
not  long  arising  in  which  the  issue  was  squarely  raised. 
Had  this  case  gone  to  the  Supreme  Court,  the  question 
of  judicial  review  would  have  been  decided  a  full  decade 
or  more  before  it  really  was.  In  this  case,  the  Tilley 
case,  a  bondholder  of  a  railroad  operating  in  Georgia 
sought  to  restrain  the  railroad  from  putting  into  force 
a  tariff  fixed  by  the  state  railroad  commission,  on  the 
ground  that  it  was  so  unreasonably  low  as  to  be  con- 
fiscatory.  Judge  Woods,  of  the  Federal  circuit  court, 
refused  to  grant  the  injunction,  basing  his  decision 
squarely  upon  the  dictum  in  Munn  v.  Illinois,  and  de 
claring  that  the  railroad  must  seek  relief  from  unjust 
action  on  the  part  of  the  commission  at  the  hands  of  the 
legislature  or  of  the  people. 

It  was  not  till  seven  years  after  the  Granger  cases 
that  another  case  involving  rate  regulation  was  presented 
to  the  Federal  courts.1  The  Ruggles  case,  brought  to 
the  Supreme  Court  by  writ  of  error  to  the  supreme  court 
of  Illinois,  in  1883,  involved  a  conviction  of  one  of  the 
agents  of  the  Illinois  Central  Railway  for  violating  a 
maximum  passenger  fare  statute  of  that  state,  and  raised 
substantially  the  same  question  as  all  of  the  Granger 
cases  except  the  Munn  case  —  the  right  of  the  legis 
lature  to  regulate  the  rates  of  a  railroad  which  was  itself 
empowered  by  its  charter  to  fix  its  own  rates.  The 
Court  affirmed  the  doctrine  of  the  Granger  cases,  Chief 
Justice  Waite  again  writing  the  opinion.  The  case  is 
noteworthy  only  for  the  opinion  of  Justice  Harlan,  con- 

1  Except  for  two  unimportant  cases  decided  in  the  lower  courts. 


72       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

curring  in  the  judgment,  but  dissenting  from  the 
opinion,  of  the  Court,  in  so  far  as  that  opinion  expressed, 
as  he  declared,  the  doctrine  that  the  legislature  of  Illinois 
could  regulate  the  rates  of  the  railway  concerned,  in 
any  manner  it  saw  fit.  Justice  Harlan  argued  that 
inasmuch  as  the  charter  of  the  railroad  had  conferred 
upon  it  the  right  to  demand  " reasonable"  charges,  the 
legislature,  when  it  resumed  the  power  of  fixing  charges, 
was  estopped  from  fixing  less  than  " reasonable"  charges ; 
and  should  charges  lower  than  " reasonable"  be  fixed,  it 
would  be  within  the  province  of  the  judicial  branch  to 
give  relief  against  such  an  impairment  of  the  obligation 
of  contract. 

Justice  Harlan's  opinion  is  interesting  not  only  be 
cause  it  touches  upon  the  possibility  of  a  judicial  review 
of  the  rate  fixed  by  the  legislature;  but  because  the 
learned  Justice  bases  his  contention  on  the  contract  be 
tween  the  railroad  and  the  state  to  the  effect  that  rates 
should  be  "reasonable."  This  indicates  plainly  that 
not  even  in  the  mind  of  Justice  Harlan,  who  later  became 
the  firm  exponent  of  the  power  of  judicial  review,  was 
there  any  clear  belief  that  the  Fourteenth  Amendment 
as  such  gave  the  Court  any  power  to  review  the  "  reason 
ableness"  of  a  rate  fixed  by  the  legislature.  In  other 
words,  he  derived  his  doctrine  of  judicial  review  from  the 
power  of  the  Federal  judiciary  to  enforce  the  obligation 
of  contracts,  and  not  from  its  power  to  compel  "due 
process  of  law." 

It  is  impossible  to  trace  here  the  numerous  decisions 
following  the  Ruggles  case  in  which  the  Supreme  Court 
was  called  upon  to  consider  the  power  of  state  legis- 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  POLITICS  AND  LAW   73 

latures  to  control  and  regulate  corporations,  particularly 
railways.  It  is  impossible  also  to  follow  out  all  of  the 
fine  and  subtle  distinctions  by  which  the  dictum  of  Chief 
Justice  Waite,  in  the  Munn  case,  to  the  effect  that  pri 
vate  parties  must  appeal  to  the  people,  and  not  to  the 
courts,  for  protection  against  state  legislatures,  was  sup 
planted  by  the  firm  interpretation  of  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  in  such  a  manner  as  to  confer  upon  the 
courts  the  final  power  to  review  all  state  legislation 
regulating  the  use  of  property  and  labor.  Of  course 
we  do  not  have,  in  fact,  this  clear-cut  reversal  of  opinion 
by  the  Court,  but  rather  a  slow  working  out  of  the  doc 
trine  of  judicial  review  as  opposed  to  an  implication  that 
the  Court  could  not  grant  to  corporations  the  relief  from 
legislative  interference  which  they  sought.  There  are 
but  few  clear-cut  reversals  in  law ;  but  the  political  effect 
of  the  Court's  decisions  has  been  none  the  less  clear  and 
positive. 

The  Minnesota  Rate  Case 

It  seems  desirable,  however,  to  indicate  some  of  the 
leading  steps  by  which  the  Court  moved  from  the  doc 
trine  of  non-interference  with  state  legislatures  to  the 
doctrine  that  it  is  charged  with  the  high  duty  of  review 
ing  all  and  every  kind  of  economic  legislation  by  the 
states.  One  of  the  leading  cases  in  this  momentous 
transition  is  that  of  the  Chicago,  Milwaukee,  and  St.  Paul 
Railway  Company  v.  Minnesota,  decided  in  1889,  which 
made  a  heavy  contribution  to  the  doctrine  of  judicial 
review  of  questions  of  political  economy  as  well  as  law. 


74       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

This  case  involved  the  validity  of  a  Minnesota  law  which 
conferred  upon  a  state  railway  commission  the  power  to 
fix  " reasonable"  rates.  The  commission,  acting  under 
this  authority,  had  fixed  a  rate  on  the  transportation  of 
milk  between  two  points. 

The  railroad  having  refused  to  put  the  rate  into  effect, 
the  commission  applied  to  the  supreme  court  of  the 
state  for  a  writ  of  mandamus.  In  its  answer  the  rail 
road  claimed,  among  other  contentions,  that  the  rate 
fixed  was  unreasonably  low.  The  supreme  court  of  the 
state  refused  to  listen  to  this  contention,  saying  that  the 
statute  by  its  terms  made  the  order  of  the  commission 
conclusively  reasonable ;  accordingly  it  issued  the 
mandamus.  By  writ  of  error,  the  case  was  brought  to 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  which,  by  a 
vote  of  six  to  three,  ordered  the  decree  of  the  state 
court  vacated,  on  the  ground  that  the  statute  as  con 
strued  by  the  supreme  court  of  the  state  was  uncon 
stitutional,  as  a  deprivation  of  property  without  due 
process  of  law. 

The  opinion  of  the  Court,  written  by  Justice  Blatch- 
ford,  has  frequently  been  interpreted  to  hold,  and  was 
indeed  interpreted  by  the  dissenting  minority  to  hold, 
that  the  judiciary  must,  to  satisfy  the  requirements  of 
"due  process,"  have  the  power  of  final  review  over  the 
reasonableness  of  all  rates,  however  fixed.  It  is  doubtful 
whether  the  language  of  the  opinion  sustains  this  reading ; 
but  the  strong  emphasis  on  the  place  of  the  judiciary  in 
determining  the  reasonableness  of  rates  lent  color  to  the 
contention  that  Mr.  Justice  Blatchford  was  setting  up 
"judicial  supremacy."  In  the  course  of  his  opinion, 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  POLITICS  AND  LAW   75 

he  said:  "The  question  of  the  reasonableness  of  a  rate 
of  charge  for  transportation  by  a  railroad  company,  in 
volving  as  it  does  the  element  of  reasonableness  both  as 
regards  the  company  and  as  regards  the  public;  is  emi 
nently  a  question  for  judicial  investigation  requiring  due 
process  of  law  for  its  determination.  If  the  company  is 
deprived  of  the  power  of  charging  reasonable  rates  for 
the  use  of  its  property,  and  such  deprivation  takes  place 
in  the  absence  of  an  investigation  by  judicial  machinery, 
it  is  deprived  of  the  lawful  use  of  its  property,  and  thus 
in  substance  and  effect,  of  the  property  itself  without  due 
process  of  law  and  in  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States." 

The  dissenting  members  of  the  Court  in  this  case 
certainly  saw  in  Justice  Blatchford's  opinion  an  assertion 
of  the  doctrine  that  whatever  the  nature  of  the  commis 
sion  established  by  law  or  the  form  of  procedure  adopted, 
the  determination  of  rates  was  subject  to  review  by  a 
strictly  judicial  tribunal.  In  his  dissent,  Mr.  Justice 
Bradley  declared  that  the  decision  had  practically  over 
ruled  Munn  v.  Illinois  and  the  other  Granger  cases. 
"The  governing  principle  of  those  cases,"  he  said,  "was 
that  the  regulation  and  settlement  of  the  affairs  of  rail 
ways  and  other  public  accommodations  is  a  legislative 
prerogative  and  not  a  judicial  one.  .  .  .  The  legislature 
has  the  right,  and  it  is  its  prerogative,  if  it  chooses  to 
exercise  it,  to  declare  what  is  reasonable.  This  is  just 
where  I  differ  from  the  majority  of  the  Court.  They 
say  in  effect,  if  not  in  terms,  that  the  final  tribunal  of 
arbitrament  is  the  judiciary ;  I  say  it  is  the  legislature. 
I  hold  that  it  is  a  legislative  question,  not  a  judicial  one, 


76       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

unless  the  legislature  or  the  law  (which  is  the  same 
thing)  has  made  it  judicial  by  prescribing  the  rule  that 
the  charges  shall  be  reasonable  and  leaving  it  there. 
It  is  always  a  delicate  thing  for  the  courts  to  make  an 
issue  with  the  legislative  department  of  the  government, 
and  they  should  never  do  it,  if  it  is  possible  to  avoid  it. 
By  the  decision  now  made  we  declare,  in  effect,  that  the 
judiciary,  and  not  the  legislature,  is  the  final  arbiter  in 
the  regulation  of  fares  and  freights  of  railroads  and  the 
charges  of  other  public  accommodations.  It  is  an  assump 
tion  of  authority  on  the  part  of  the  judiciary  which,  it 
seems  to  me,  with  a  due  reverence  to  the  judgment  of  my 
brethren,  it  has  no  right  to  make.  .  .  .  Deprivation  of 
property  by  mere  arbitrary  power  on  the  part  of  the 
legislature  or  fraud  on  the  part  of  the  commission  are  the 
only  grounds  on  which  judicial  relief  may  be  sought 
against  their  action.  There  was  in  truth  no  deprivation 
of  property  in  these  cases  at  all.  .  .  .  It  may  be  that 
our  legislatures  are  invested  with  too  much  power,  open 
as  they  are  to  influences  so  dangerous  to  the  interests 
of  individuals,  corporations,  and  societies.  But  such  is 
the  Constitution  of  our  republican  form  of  government, 
and  we  are  bound  to  abide  by  it  until  it  can  be  corrected 
in  a  legitimate  way." 

The  Development  of  Judicial  Review 

A  further  step  toward  judicial  review  even  still  more 
significant  was  taken,  in  the  case  of  Reagan  v.  Farmers7 
Loan  and  Trust  Company,  decided  by  the  Supreme  Court 
in  1894.  This  case  came  up  from  the  Federal  circuit 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  POLITICS  AND  LAW   77 

court  of  Texas  which  had  enjoined  the  state  railway  com 
missioners  from  fixing  and  putting  into  effect  railway 
rates  which  the  Trust  Company,  as  a  bondholder  and 
interested  party,  contended  were  too  low,  although  not 
confiscatory. 

The  opinion  of  the  Court,  written  by  Justice  Brewer, 
who,  as  Federal  circuit  judge,  had  already  taken  advanced 
ground  in  favor  of  judicial  review,  went  the  whole  length 
in  upholding  the  right  of  the  judiciary  to  review  the 
reasonableness,  not  only  of  a  rate  fixed  by  a  commission, 
as  in  the  case  in  hand,  but  even  of  one  fixed  by  the  legis 
lature.  The  case  differed  in  no  essential  way,  declared 
the  justice,  from  those  cases  in  which  it  had  been  the 
age-long  practice  of  the  judiciary  to  act  as  final  arbiters 
of  reasonableness  —  cases  in  which  a  charge  exacted  by  a 
common  carrier  was  attacked  by  a  shipper  or  passenger 
as  unreasonable.  The  difference  between  the  two  cases 
was  merely  that  in  the  one  the  rate  alleged  to  be  un 
reasonable  was  fixed  by  the  carrier ;  in  the  other  it  was 
fixed  by  the  commission  or  by  the  legislature.  In  sup 
port  of  this  remarkable  bit  of  legal  reasoning,  the  opinion 
adduced  as  precedents  merely  a  few  brief  excerpts,  from 
previous  decisions  of  the  Court,  nearly  all  of  which  were 
pure  dicta. 

The  absence  of  any  dissent  from  this  opinion,  in  spite 
of  the  fact  that  Judge  Gray,  who  had  concurred  in  Justice 
Bradley's  vigorous  dissenting  opinion  in  the  Chicago- 
Minnesota  case  four  years  before,  was  still  on  the  bench, 
indicates  that  the  last  lingering  opposition  to  the  doc 
trine  of  judicial  review  in  the  minds  of  any  of  the  Court 
had  been  dissolved.  Henceforth  it  was  but  the  emphatic 


78       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

affirmation  and  consistent  development  of  that  doctrine 
that  was  to  be  expected. 

If  we  leave  out  of  account  Mr.  Justice  Brewer's  dicta 
and  consider  the  Court  to  have  decided  merely  the  issues 
squarely  presented,  the  Reagan  case  left  much  to  be 
done  before  the  doctrine  of  judicial  review  could  be  re 
garded  as  established  beyond  all  possibility  of  limitation 
and  serious  qualification.  Other  cases  on  the  point 
followed  quickly,  but  it  was  not  until  the  celebrated  case 
of  Smyth  v.  Ames,  decided  in  1898,  that  the  two  leading 
issues  were  fairly  presented  and  settled.  In  this  case 
the  rate  attacked  was  not  fixed  by  a  commission,  but  by  a 
state  legislature  itself;  and  the  rate  was  not  admitted 
by  the  counsel  for  the  state  to  be  unreasonable,  but  was 
strongly  defended  as  wholly  reasonable  and  just.  The 
Court  had  to  meet  the  issues. 

The  original  action  in  the  case  of  Smyth  v.  Ames  was 
a  bill  in  equity  brought  against  the  attorney-general  and 
the  Nebraska  state  board  of  transportation,  in  the  Fed 
eral  circuit  court,  by  certain  bondholders  of  the  railroads 
affected,  to  restrain  the  enforcement  of  the  statute  of  that 
state  providing  a  comprehensive  schedule  of  freight 
rates.  The  bills  alleged,  and  attempted  to  demonstrate 
by  elaborate  calculations,  that  the  rates  fixed  were  con- 
fiscatory,  inasmuch  as  a  proportionate  reduction  on  all 
the  rates  of  the  railroads  affected  by  them  would  so  re 
duce  the  income  of  the  companies  as  to  make  it  impossible 
for  them  to  pay  any  dividends ;  and  in  the  case  of  some 
of  them,  even  to  meet  all  their  bonded  obligations.  On 
behalf  of  the  state,  it  was  urged  that  the  reduction  in 
rates  would  increase  business,  and,  therefore,  increase 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  POLITICS  AND  LAW   79 

net  earnings,  and  that  some  at  least  of  the  companies 
were  bonded  far  in  excess  of  their  actual  value.  Supreme 
Court  Justice  Brewer,  sitting  in  circuit,  on  the  basis  of 
the  evidence  submitted  to  him,  consisting  mainly  of 
statements  of  operating  expenses,  gross  receipts,  and 
inter-  and  intra-state  tonnage,  found  the  contention  of 
the  railroads  well  taken,  and  issued  the  injunctions  ap 
plied  for. 

The  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court,  affirming  the 
decree  of  Judge  Brewer,  was,  in  the  essential  part  of  it  — 
that  asserting  the  principle  of  judicial  review  in  its 
broadest  terms  —  singularly  brief.  Contenting  himself 
with  citing  a  few  short  dicta  from  previous  decisions, 
Justice  Harlan,  speaking  for  the  Court,  declared  that  the 
principle  "must  be  regarded  as  settled"  that  the  reason 
ableness  of  a  rate  could  not  be  so  conclusively  deter 
mined  by  a  legislature  as  to  escape  review  by  the  judiciary. 
Equally  well  settled,  it  was  declared,  was  the  principle 
that  property  affected  with  a  public  interest  was  entitled 
to  a  "fair  return"  on  its  "fair"  valuation.  These  prin 
ciples  regarded  as  established,  the  Court  proceeded  to 
examine  the  evidence,  although  it  admitted  that  it 
lacked  the  technical  knowledge  necessary  to  a  com 
pletely  equitable  decision ;  and  sustained  the  rinding  of 
the  lower  court  in  favor  of  the  railroads.  There  was  no 
dissent. 

With  Smyth  v.  Ames  the  doctrine  of  judicial  review 
may  be  regarded  as  fully  established.  No  portion  of 
the  judicial  prerogative  could  now  be  surrendered  with 
out  not  merely  "distinguishing"  but  flatly  overruling  a 
unanimous  decision  of  the  Court. 


8o       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

The  significance  of  Smyth  v.  Ames  was  soon  observable 
in  the  activities  of  the  lower  Federal  courts.  Within 
the  nine  months  of  1898  that  followed  that  decision,  there 
were  at  least  four  applications  for  injunctions  against 
alleged  unreasonable  rates,  and  in  three  of  these  cases  the 
applications  were  granted.  During  the  years  that 
followed  Smyth  v.  Ames,  Federal  courts  all  over  the 
country  were  tying  the  hands  of  state  officers  who  at 
tempted  to  put  into  effect  legislative  measures  regulating 
railway  concerns.  In  Arkansas,  Florida,  Alabama, 
Minnesota,  Missouri,  Illinois,  North  Carolina,  Louisiana, 
and  Oregon,  rates  fixed  by  statute,  commission,  or  or 
dinance  were  attacked  by  the  railways  in  the  Federal 
courts  and  their  enforcement  blocked.  In  several  in 
stances  the  injunctions  of  the  lower  courts  were  made  per 
manent,  and  no  appeal  was  taken  to  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States.  With  Smyth  v.  Ames  staring 
them  in  the  face,  state  attorneys  accepted  the  inevitable. 

THe  decision  in  Smyth  v.  Ames  left  still  one  matter  in 
doubt.  The  allegation  of  the  railroads  in  that  case  had 
been  that  the  rates  fixed  were  actually  confiscatory  - 
that  is,  so  low  as  to  make  dividends  impossible.  In 
the  course  of  his  opinion,  Justice  Harlan  had  stated, 
however,  that  the  railroads  were  entitled  to  a  "fair  re 
turn,"  an  opinion  that  had  been  expressed  also  in  the 
Reagan  case,  where  indeed  it  had  been  necessary  to  the 
decision,  and  still  earlier,  but  with  little  relevancy,  in  the 
Chicago-Minnesota  case.  In  none  of  these  cases,  how 
ever,  had  any  precise  definition  of  the  terms  "reasonable " 
or  "fair"  return  been  necessary,  and  none  had  been  made. 

The  first  direct  suggestion  of  the  development  of  the 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  POLITICS  AND  LAW   81 

judicial  reasoning  on  this  point  that  was  to  take  place 
is  found  in  the  Milwaukee  Electric  Railway  case,  also 
decided  in  1898.  In  that  case  Judge  Seaman,  of  the 
Federal  circuit  court,  found  from  the  evidence  that  the 
dividends  of  the  street  railway  company  for  several 
years  past  had  been  from  3.3  to  4.5  per  cent,  while  its 
bonds  bore  interest  at  5  per  cent.  Anything  less  than 
these  returns,  the  judge  declared,  would  be  unreasonable, 
inasmuch  as  money  loaned  on  real  estate,  secured  by  a 
first  mortgage,  was  at  that  time  commanding  6  per  cent 
in  Milwaukee. 

Eleven  years  later,  in  1909,  the  Supreme  Court  sus 
tained  virtually  the  same  rule  in  the  New  York  Con 
solidated  Gas  case,  holding,  with  the  lower  court,  that 
the  company  was  entitled  to  six  per  cent  return  on  a  fair 
value  of  its  property  (including  franchises  and  the  high 
values  of  the  real  estate  used  by  it  in  the  business),  be 
cause  six  per  cent  was  the  "  customary  "  rate  of  interest 
at  that  time  in  New  York  City.  On  the  same  day  the 
court  decided  that  a  return  of  six  per  cent  on  waterworks 
property  in  Knoxville,  Tennessee,  was  also  not  unreason 
able.  In  neither  of  these  cases,  however,  did  the  Court 
attempt  any  examination  or  explanation  of  the  evidence 
on  which  it  rested  its  determination  that  six  per  cent  was 
the  " customary"  rate  in  the  places  named;  nor  did  it 
attempt  to  explain  the  principle  on  which  such  "cus 
tomary"  rate  could  be  determined  for  other  times  and 
places.  Plainly  there  is  still  room  for  a  great  deal  of 
"distinguishing "  on  this  point.  The  extreme  vagueness  of 
the  rule  was  exemplified  by  the  decision  of  Federal  circuit 
Judge  Sanbornin  the  Shephard  case  (1912),  in  which  he 


82       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

decided  that,  for  a  railroad  running  through  Minnesota, 
seven  per  cent  was  no  more  than  a  "fair  "  return,  and  that 
any  reduction  in  rates  which  would  diminish  the  profits 
of  the  road  below  that  figure  was  unreasonable. 

Equally  important  and  of  as  great  difficulty  are  the 
questions  entering  into  the  determination  of  a  "fair" 
valuation.  This  point  is  both  too  unsettled  and  too 
technical  to  render  any  discussion  of  it  profitable  here. 
Attention  may,  however,  be  called  to  two  of  the  holdings 
in  the  Consolidated  Gas  case.  In  arriving  at  a  "fair" 
valuation  of  the  gas  company's  property,  the  Court 
allowed  a  large  valuation  to  be  placed  upon  the  fran 
chises  of  the  company  —  none  of  which  had  been  paid 
for  by  the  companies  to  which  they  had  originally  been 
issued,  and  which  had  not  been  paid  for  by  the  Con 
solidated  Company  when  it  took  them  over,  except  in 
the  sense  that  a  large  amount  of  stock,  more  than 
one  sixth  of  the  total  stock  issued  by  the  company, 
had  been  issued  against  them,  when  the  consolidation 
was  formed.  The  particular  facts  surrounding  this 
case  are  such  as  to  make  it  very  easy  for  the  Court  to 
"distinguish"  this  case  from  the  usual  one,  for  the  con 
solidation  was  formed,  and  its  stock  issued,  under  a 
statute  that  authorized  the  formation  of  consolidations, 
and  forbade  such  consolidations  to  issue  stock  in  excess 
of  the  fair  value  of  the  "property,  franchises,  and  rights" 
of  the  constituent  companies.  This  last  prohibition  the 
Court  construed  as  indicative  of  the  legislative  intention 
that  the  franchises  should  be  capitalized.  Equally 
plain  is  it,  however,  that  this  particular  circumstance  of 
the  Consolidated  Gas  case  is  so  irrelevant  that  it  will 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  POLITICS  AND  LAW  83 

offer  no  obstacle  whatever  to  the  Court's  quoting  that 
case  as  a  precedent  for  the  valuation  of  franchises  ob 
tained  gratis,  should  it  so  desire. 

Another  holding  of  great  importance  in  the  Gas  case 
was  that  the  company  was  entitled  to  a  fair  return  on  the 
value  of  real  estate  used  in  the  business,  that  value 
having  appreciated  very  greatly  since  the  original  pur 
chase  of  the  real  estate,  and  there  being  no  evidence  to 
show  that  real  estate  of  so  great  value  was  essential  to 
the  conduct  of  the  business. 

The  importance  of  these  two  holdings  is  exemplified 
by  the  fact  that  in  this  particular  case  the  combined 
value  attributed  to  the  franchises  and  the  appreciation 
of  real  estate  was  over  $15,000,000  —  more  than  one 
fourth  of  the  total  valuation  arrived  at  by  the  Supreme 
Court.  It  will  readily  be  seen  that  if  these  two  items 
had  been  struck  from  the  valuation  by  the  Court,  it 
would  be  possible  for  the  state  to  make  a  still  further 
substantial  reduction  in  the  rate  charged  for  gas  in  New 
York  City  without  violating  the  Court's  own  canon  of 
reasonableness  —  a  six  per  cent  return. 

The  steps  in  the  evolution  of  the  doctrine  of  judicial 
review  may  be  summarized  in  the  following  manner : 

The  Supreme  Court  first  declared  that  the  legislative 
determination  of  what  was  a  " reasonable"  rate  was  not 
subject  to  review  by  the  courts. 

The  first  departure  from  this  view  was  an  intimation, 
confirmed  with  increasing  emphasis  in  several  cases,  that 
a  rate  so  low  as  to  make  any  return  whatever  impossible 
was  confiscatory  and  would  be  set  aside  by  the  Court  as 
violating  the  Fourteenth  Amendment.  For  a  time, 
\  •;••--,  ' 


84       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

however,  the  Court  took  the  position  (steadily  under 
mined  in  subsequent  decisions)  that  a  rate  which  allowed 
some,  even  though  an  " unreasonably  low"  return,  was 
not  prohibited  by  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  and  could 
not  be  set  aside  by  the  Court. 

Next  in  order  came  the  holding  that  the  determination 
of  a  commission  as  to  what  was  reasonable  could  not  be 
made  conclusive  upon  the  courts,  at  least  when  the  com 
mission  had  acted  without  the  forms  and  safeguards  of 
judicial  procedure,  and,  probably,  even  when  it  had  acted 
with  them. 

In  the  same  decision  appeared  an  intimation,  which  in 
subsequent  decisions  became  crystallized  into  "settled 
law,"  that  not  only  were  totally  confiscatory  rates  pro 
hibited  by  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  but  also  any  rates 
which  deprived  the  owners  of  the  property  regulated  of  a 
return  equal  to  what  was  " customary"  in  private  enter 
prises. 

This  rule  was  applied  by  the  Court  for  the  first  time 
against  a  rate  fixed  by  a  commission,  and  where  the  rate 
was  admitted  by  the  pleadings  to  be  confiscatory.  But 
it  was  shortly  thereafter  applied  to  a  rate  fixed  by  a 
legislature,  and  where  the  "  reasonableness "  (not  the 
confiscatory  character)  of  the  rate  was  a  direct  issue  on 
the  facts  and  evidence. 

Finally,  the  principle  that  what  is  a  "fair  "  or  '''reason 
able"  rate  is  to  be  measured  by  the  customary  return 
in  private  enterprises  under  similar  conditions,  has  been 
applied  in  several  cases  to  warrant  the  requirement  of  a 
definite  rate  of  interest ;  but  no  precise  rules  have  been 
laid  down  for  the  determination  of  such  rate  in  all  cases. 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  POLITICS  AND  LAW   85 

The  most  striking  feature,  perhaps,  of  the  develop 
ment  of  the  doctrine  of  judicial  review  here  traced,  as 
seen  in  the  opinions  of  the  Supreme  Court,  is  the  brevity 
and  almost  fortuitous  character  of  the  reasoning  given 
in  support  of  the  most  important  and  novel  holdings. 
A  comparison  of  the  reasoning  in  Smyth  v.  Ames,  for 
example,  with  that  in  Marbury  v.  Madison,  in  which 
Chief  Justice  Marshall  first  held  a  law  of  Congress  un 
constitutional,  will  forcibly  exemplify  this.  The  ex 
planation  is  to  be  found  largely  in  the  fact  that  each  step 
in  advance  in  the  building  up  of  the  doctrine  had  been 
foreshadowed  in  d-vebum  before  it  was  established  as 
decision.  It  was  thus  possible  for  the  judge  writing  the 
opinion  in  a  case  when  a  new  rule  was  actually  estab 
lished,  to  quote,  as  "settled  law,"  a  mere  dictum  from  a 
previous  opinion.  Justice  Gray's  citation,  in  this  fashion, 
in  the  Dow  case,  of  Chief  Justice  Waite's  dictum  in  the 
Ruggles  case  (although  he  might,  with  equal  cogency, 
have  cited  the  Chief  Justice's  contrary  dictum  in  the 
Munn  or  Peik  cases),  is  a  good  instance  of  this  curious 
use  of  "precedent";  and  parallel  instances  could  be  ad 
duced  from  virtually  every  one  of  the  important  subse 
quent  cases  on  this  subject.1 

It  is  apparent  from  this  all  too  brief  and   incomplete 

1  It  should  be  noted  that  the  Supreme  Court  not  only  undertook  to 
pass  upon  the  reasonableness  of  such  rates  as  the  states  were  permitted 
to  make,  but  also  added  in  1886  that  no  state  could  regulate  the  rates  on 
goods  transported  within  its  borders,  when  such  goods  were  in  transit 
to  or  from  a  point  in  another  state.  Such  regulation  was  held  in  the 
Wabash,  etc.,  Railway  Company  v.  Illinois  (118  U.  S.  557)  to  be  an  inter 
ference  with  interstate  commerce  which  was  subject  to  control  by  Con 
gress  only. 


86       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

account  of  the  establishment  of  judicial  review  over 
every  kind  and  class  of  state  legislation  affecting  private 
property  rights  that  no  layman  can  easily  unravel  the 
mysterious  refinements,  distinctions,  and  logical  sub 
tleties  by  which  the  fact  was  finally  established  that 
property  was  to  be  free  from  all  interference  except  such 
as  might  be  allowed  by  the  Supreme  Court  (or  rather 
five  judges  of  that  Court)  appointed  by  the  President 
and  Senate,  thus  removed  as  far  as  possible  from  the 
pressure  of  public  sentiment.  Had  a  bald  veto  power  of 
this  character  been  suddenly  vested  in  any  small  group 
of  persons,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  a  political  revolt 
would  have  speedily  followed.  But  the  power  was  built 
up  by  gradual  accretions  made  by  the  Court  under  the 
stimulus  of  skilful  counsel  for  private  parties,  and 
finally  clothed  in  the  majesty  of  settled  law.  It  was  a 
long  time  before  the  advocates  of  leveling  democracy, 
leading  an  attack  on  corporate  rights  and  privileges,  dis 
covered  that  the  courts  were  the  bulwarks  of  laissez  faire 
and  directed  their  popular  battalions  in  that  direction. 

Those  who  undertake  to  criticize  the  Supreme  Court 
for  this  assumption  of  power  do  not  always  distinguish 
between  the  power  itself  and  the  manner  of  its  exercise. 
What  would  have  happened  if  the  state  legislatures  had 
been  given  a  free  hand  to  regulate,  penalize,  and  black 
mail  corporations  at  will  during  the  evolution  of  our 
national  economic  system  may  be  left  to  the  imagination 
of  those  who  recall  from  their  history  the  breezy  days  of 
"wild-cat"  currency,  repudiation,  and  broken  faith 
which  characterized  the  thirty  years  preceding  the  Civil 
War  when  the  Federal  judiciary  was  under  the  dominance 


THE  REVOLUTION  IN  POLITICS  AND  LAW   87 

of  the  states'  rights  school.  The  regulation  of  a  national 
economic  system  by  forty  or  more  local  legislatures  would 
be  nothing  short  of  an  attempt  to  combine  economic  unity 
with  local  anarchy.  It  is  possible  to  hold  that  the  Court 
has  been  too  tender  of  corporate  rights  in  assuming  the 
power  of  judicial  review,  and  at  the  same  time  recognize 
the  fact  that  such  a  power,  vested  somewhere  in  the 
national  government,  is  essential  to  the  continuance  of 
industries  and  commerce  on  a  national  scale. 

Thus  far  attention  has  been  directed  to  the  activi 
ties  of  the  Federal  Supreme  Court  in  establishing  the 
principle  of  judicial  review  particularly  in  connection 
with  legislation  relative  to  railway  corporations,  but 
it  should  be  noted  that  judicial  review  covers  all  kinds 
of  social  legislation  relative  to  hours  and  conditions 
of  labor  as  well  as  the  charges  of  common  carriers. 
In  1905,  for  example,  the  Supreme  Co'urt  in  the  cele 
brated  case  of  Lochner  v.  New  York  declared  null 
and  void  a  New  York  law  fixing  the  hours  of  work  in 
bakeshops  at  ten  per  day,  basing  its  action  on  the 
principle  that  the  right  to  contract  in  relation  to  the 
hours  of  labor  was  a  part  of  the  liberty  which  the  in 
dividual  enjoyed  under  the  Fourteenth  Amendment. 
Mr.  Justice  Holmes,  who  dissented  in  the  case,  declared 
that  it  was  decided  on  an  economic  theory  which  a 
large  part  of  the  country  did  not  entertain,  and  pro 
tested  that  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  did  not  "  enact 
Mr.  Herbert  Spencer's  Social  Statics." 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  has  declared  very  little  social  legisla- 


88       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

tion  invalid,  and  has  been  inclined  to  take  a  more 
liberal  view  of  such  matters  than  the  supreme  courts 
of  the  states.  The  latter  also  have  authority  to  de 
clare  state  laws  void  as  violating  the  Federal  Constitu 
tion,  and  when  a  state  court  of  proper  jurisdiction 
invalidates  a  state  law,  there  is,  under  the  Federal 
judiciary  act,  no  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States.  Consequently,  the  Fourteenth  Amend 
ment  means  in  each  state  what  the  highest  court  holds 
it  to  mean,  and  since  the  adoption  of  that  Amendment 
at  least  one  thousand  state  laws  have  been  nullified  by 
the  action  of  state  courts,  under  the  color  of  that 
Amendment  or  their  respective  state  constitutions. 

As  examples,  in  New  York  a  law  prohibiting  the 
manufacture  of  cigars  in  tenement  houses,  in  Pennsyl 
vania  a  law  prohibiting  the  payment  of  wages  in 
"  scrip  "  or  store  orders,  and  in  Illinois  a  statute  for 
bidding  mining  and  manufacturing  corporations  to 
hold  back  the  wages  of  their  employees  for  more  than 
a  week  were  declared  null  and  void.  Such  laws  were 
nullified  not  only  on  the  ground  that  they  deprived  the 
employer  of  property  without  due  process,  but  also  on 
the  theory  that  they  deprived  workingmen  of  the 
"  liberty  "  guaranteed  to  them  to  work  under  any  con 
ditions  they  chose.  In  one  of  these  cases,  a  Pennsyl 
vania  court  declared  the  labor  law  in  question  to  be 
"  an  insulting  attempt  to  put  the  laborer  under  a  legis 
lative  tutelage  which  is  not  only  degrading  to  his  man 
hood  but  subversive  of  his  rights  as  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States." 

Where  the  state  court  nullified  under  the  state  con- 


r 
THE  REVOLUTION  IN  POLITICS  AND  LAW   89 

stitution,  it  was  of  course  relatively  easy  to  set  aside 
the  doctrines  of  the  court  by  amending  the  constitu 
tion,  but  where  the  state  court  nullified  on  the  ground 
of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitu 
tion,  there  was  no  relief  for  the  state  and  even  no 
appeal  for  a  review  of  the  case  to  discover  whether  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  would  uphold  the 
state  tribunal  in  its  view  of  the  national  law.  Under 
such  circumstances,  the  highest  state  court  became  the 
supreme  power  in  the  state,  for  its  decrees  based  on  the 
Federal  Constitution  were  final.  It  was  the  freedom, 
one  may  say,  recklessness,  with  which  the  courts  nullified 
state  laws  that  was  largely  responsible  for  the  growth 
of  the  popular  feeling  against  the  judiciary,  and  led 
to  the  demand  for  the  recall  of  judges.1 

1  Below,  p.  287. 


CHAPTER  IV 

PARTIES  AND  PARTY   ISSUES,    1877-1896 

IT  was  a  long  time  before  the  conditions  created  by 
the  great  economic  revolution  were  squarely  reflected  in 
political  literature  and  party  programs.  Indeed,  they 
were  but  vaguely  comprehended  by  the  generation  of 
statesmen  who  had  been  brought  up  in  the  days  of  the 
stagecoach  and  the  water  mill.  It  is  true  that  the  in 
evitable  drift  of  capitalism  in  the  United  States  might 
have  been  foreseen  by  turning  to  Europe,  particularly 
to  England,  where  a  similar  economic  revolution  had 
produced  clearly  ascertainable  results;  but  American 
politicians  believed,  or  at  least  contended,  that  the 
United  States  lived  under  a  special  economic  dispensation 
and  that  the  grave  social  problems  which  had  menaced 
Europe  for  more  than  a  generation  when  the  Civil  War 
broke  out  could  never  arise  on  American  soil. 

From  1 86 1  to  1913,  the  Republican  party  held  the 
presidential  office,  except  for  eight  years.  That  party 
had  emerged  from  the  Civil  War  fortified  by  an  intense 
patriotism  and  by  the  support  of  the  manufacturing 
interests  which  had  flourished  under  the  high  tariffs 
and  of  capitalists  anxious  to  swing  forward  with  the 
development  of  railways  and  new  enterprises.  Its 
origin  had  been  marked  by  a  wave  of  moral  enthusiasm 
such  as  has  seldom  appeared  in  the  history  of  politics. 

90 


PARTIES  AND   PARTY  ISSUES,   1877-1896      91 

It  came  to  the  presidency  as  a  minority  party,  but  by  the 
fortunes  of  war  it  became  possessed  of  instruments  of 
power  beyond  all  calculation.  Its  leading  opponents 
from  the  South  deserted  in  a  mass  giving  it  in  a  short 
time  possession  of  the  field — all  the  Federal  branches  of 
government.  It  had  the  management  of  the  gigantic 
war  finances,  through  which  it  attached  to  itself  the  in 
terests  and  fortunes  of  the  great  capitalists  and  bankers 
throughout  the  North.  It  raised  revenues  by  a  high 
tariff  which  placed  thousands  of  manufacturers  under 
debt  to  it  and  linked  their  fortunes  also  with  its  fate.  It 
possessed  the  Federal  offices,  and, ^therefore,  railway 
financiers  and  promoters  of  all  kind's  m&L  to  turn  to  it 
for  privileges  and  protection.  Finally,  millions'  ef  farmers 
of  the  West  owed  their  homes  to  its  generous  policy  of 
giving  away  public  lands.  Never  had  a  party  had  its 
foundations  on  interests  ramifying  throughout  such  a 
large  portion  of  society. 

And  over  all  it  spread  the  mantle  of  patriotism.  It 
had  saved  the  Union,  and  it  had  struck  the  shackles 
from  four  million  bondmen.  In  a  baptism  of  fire  it  had 
redeemed  a  nation.  Europe's  finger  of  scorn  could  no 
longer  be  pointed  to  the  "slave  republic  paying  its  de 
votions  to  liberty  and  equality  within  the  sound  of  the 
bondman's  wail."  The  promises  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  had  been  fulfilled  and  the  heroic  deeds  of 
the  Revolution  rivaled  by  Republican  leaders.  As  it 
declared  in  its  platform  of  1876,  the  Republican  party 
had  come  into  power  "  when  in  the  economy  of  Providence 
this  land  was  to  be  purged  of  human  slavery  and  when 
the  strength  of  the  government  of  the  people,  by  the 


92       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

people,  and  for  the  people  was  to  be  demonstrated." 
Incited  by  the  memories  of  its  glorious  deeds  "to  high 
aims  for  the  good  of  our  country  and  mankind/'  it 
looked  forward  "with  unfaltering  courage,  hope,  and 
purpose." 

Against  such  a  combination  of  patriotism  and  economic 
interest,  the  Democratic  party  had  difficulty  in  making 
headway,  for  its  former  economic  mainstay,  the  slave 
power,  was  broken  and  gone;  it  was  charged  with 
treason,  and  it  enjoyed  none  of  the  spoils  of  national 
office.  But  in  spite  of  all  obstacles  it  showed  remarkable 
vitality.  Though  divided  on  the  slave  question  in  1860, 
those  who  boasted  the  name  of  "Democrat"  were  in  an 
overwhelming  majority,  and  even  during  the  Civil  War, 
with  the  southern  wing  cut  off  completely,  the  party 
was  able  to  make  a  respectable  showing  in  the  campaign 
which  resulted  in  Lincoln's  second  election.  When  the 
South  returned  to  the  fold,  and  white  dominion  drove 
the  negro  from  the  polls,  the  Democratic  party  began  to 
renew  its  youth.  In  the  elections  of  1874,  it  captured 
the  House  of  Representatives ;  it  narrowly  missed  the 
presidency  in  1876 ;  and  it  retained  its  control  of  the 
lower  house  of  Congress  in  the  elections  of  1876  and  1878. 

The  administration  of  President  Hayes  did  little  to 
strengthen  the  position  of  the  Republicans.  His  policy 
of  pacification  in  the  South  alienated  many  partisans 
who  believed  that  those  who  had  saved  the  Union  should 
continue  to  rule  it ;  but  it  is  difficult  to  say  how  much 
disaffection  should  be  attributed  to  this  cause.  It 
seems  to  have  been  quietly  understood  within  official 


PARTIES  AND   PARTY  ISSUES,    1877-1896      93 

circles  that  support  would  be  withdrawn  from  the  Repub 
lican  administrations  in  Louisiana  and  South  Carolina. 
Senator  Hoar  is  authority  for  the  statement  "that 
General  Grant,  before  he  left  office,  had  determined  to 
do  in  regard  to  these  state  governments  exactly  what 
Hayes  afterward  did,  and  that  Hayes  acted  with  his 
full  approval.  Second,  I  have  the  authority  of  President 
Garfield  for  saying  that  Mr.  Elaine  had  come  to  the 
same  conclusion." 

Charges  based  on  sectional  feeling  were  also  brought 
forward  in  criticism  of  some  of  Hayes'  cabinet  appoint 
ments.  He  terrified  the  advocates  of  "no  concession  to 
rebels"  by  appointing  David  M.  Key,  an  ex- Confederate 
soldier  of  Tennessee,  to  the  office  of  Postmaster- General ; 
and  his  selection  of  Carl  Schurz,  a  leader  of  the  Liberal 
Republican  Movement  of  1872  and  an  uncertain  quan 
tity  in  politics,  as  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  was  scarcely 
more  palatable  in  some  quarters..  He  created  further 
trouble  in  Republican  ranks  by  his  refusal  to  accede 
to  the  demands  of  powerful  Senators,  like  Cameron  of 
Pennsylvania  and  Conkling  of  New  York,  for  control 
over  patronage  in  their  respective  states.  No  other 
President  for  more  than  a  generation  had  so  many 
nominations  rejected  by  the  Senate. 

On  the  side  of  legislation,  Hayes'  administration  was 
nearly  barren.  During  his  entire  term  the  House  of 
Representatives  was  Democratic,  and  during  the  last 
two  years  the  Senate  was  Democratic  also  by  a  good 
margin.  Had  he  desired  to  carry  out  a  large  legislative 
policy,  he  could  not  have  done  so;  but  he  was  not  a 
man  of  great  capacity  as  an  initiator  of  public  policies. 


94       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

He  maintained  his  dignity  and  self-possession  in  the 
midst  of  the  most  trying  party  squabbles;  but  in  a 
democracy  other  qualities  than  these  are  necessary  for 
effective  leadership. 

In  their  desperation,  the  conservative  leaders  of  the 
Republican  party  resolved  to  have  no  more  "weak  and 
goody-goody"  Presidents,  incapable  of  fascinating  the 
populace  and  keeping  it  in  good  humor,  and  they  made 
a  determined  effort  to  secure  the  renomination  of  Grant 
for  a  third  term,  in  spite  of  the  tradition  against  it. 
Conkling  captured  the  New  York  delegation  to  the 
national  convention  in  1880  for  Grant;  Cameron  swung* 
Pennsylvania  into  line ;  and  Logan  carried  off  Illinois. 
Grant's  consent  to  be  a  candidate  was  obtained,  and 
Conkling  placed  his  name  fin  nomination  in  a  speech 
,  whi^h  Senator  Hoar  describes  as  one  of  "very  great 
power." 

\  Strong  opposition f  to  Grant  developed,  however, 
partly  on  account  of  the  feeling  against  the  third  term, 
and  particularly  on  account  of  the  antagonism  to  the 
Conkling  faction  which  was  backing  him.  Friends  of 
Elaine,  then  Senator  from  Maine,  and  supporters  of 
John  Sherman  of  Ohio,  thought  that  Grant  had  ^had 
enough  honors  at  the  hands  of  the  party,  and  that  their 
turn  had  come.  As  a  result  of  a  combination  of  circum 
stances,  Grant  never  received  more  than  313  of  the  378 
votes  necessary  to  nomination  at  the  Republican  con 
vention.  After  prolonged  balloting,  the  deadlock  was 
broken  by  the  nomination  of  James  A.  Garfield,  of  Ohio, 
as  a  "dark  horse."  The  Grant  contingent  from  New 


PARTIES  AND  PARTY  ISSUES,   1877-1896      95 

York  received  a  sop  in  the  shape  of  the  nomination  of 
Chester  A.  Arthur,  a  politician  of  the  Conkling  school, 
to  the  office  of  Vice  President.  • 

In  spite  of  the  promising  signs,  the  Democrats  were 
unable  to  defeat  the  Republicans  in  1880.  The  latter 
found  it  possible  to  heal,  at  least  for  campaign  pur 
poses,  the  breaches  created  by  'Hayes'  administration. 
It  is  trjie  that  Senator  Conkling  and  the  " Stalwart" 
faction  identified  with  corporation  interests  were  sorely 
disappointed  in  their  failure  to  secure  the  nomination 
of  Grant  for  a  third  term,  and  that  Garfield  as  a  "dafk 
horse  "  did  not  have  a  personal  following  like  that  of  his 
chief  opponents,  the  Hero  t)f  Appomattox,  Elaine  of 
Maine,  and  Sherman  of  Ohio.  But  he  had  the  advantage 
of  escaping  the  bitter  factional  feeling  within  the  party 
against  each  of  these  leaders.  He  had  risen/from  humble 
circumstances,  -and  his  managers  were  able  to  make 
great  capital  out  of*his  youthful  labors  as  a  "canal-boat 
boy."  He  had  served  several  terms  in  Congress  ac 
ceptably  ;  •  he  had  been  intrusted  with  a  delicate  place 
as  a  member  of  the  electoral  commission  that  had  settled 
the  Hayes-Tilden  dispute ;  and  he  wa^  at  the  time  of  his 
nomination  Senator-elect  from 'Ohio.  Though  without 
the  high  qualities  of  leadership  that  distinguished  Blaine, 
Garfield  was  a  decidedly  -"available"  candidate^and  his 
candidature  was  strengthened  by  the  nomination  of 
Arthur,  who  was  acceptable  to  the  Conkling  group  and 
the  spoilsmen  generally. 

The  Republican  fortunes  in  r88o  were  further  enhanced 
by  the  .divisions  among  the '  Democrats  and  their  .in- 
ability  to  play  the  game  of  practical  politics.  *Two  sets 


96       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

of  delegates  appeared  at  the  convention  from  New  York, 
and  the  Tammany  group  headed  by  "Boss"  Kelly  was 
excluded,  thus  offending  a  powerful  section  of  the  party 
in  that  pivotal  state.  The  candidate  nominated,  General 
Hancock,  was  by  no  means  a  .skilful  leader.  In  fact,  he 
had  had  no  public  experience  outside  of  the  Army,  where 
he  had  made  a  brilliant  record,  and  he  showed  no  ability 
at  all  as  a  campaigner.  Finally,  the  party  made  its  fight 
principally  on  the  "great  fraud  of  1876,"  asking  vindi 
cation  at  the  hands  of  the  people  on  the  futile  theory  that 
the  voters  would  take  an  interest  in  punishing  a  four- 
year-old  crime.  In  its  platform,  reported  by  Mr.  Watter- 
son,  of  Kentucky,  it  declared  that  the  Democrats  had 
submitted  to  that  outrage  because  they  were  convinced 
that  the  people  would  punish  the  crime  in  1880.  "This 
issue  precedes  and  dwarfs  every  other;  it  imposes  a 
more  sacred  duty  upon  the  people  of  the  Union  than 
ever  addressed  to  the  conscience  of  a' nation  of  freemen." 
Notwithstanding  this  narrow  issue,  Hancock  fell  behind 
Garfield  only  about  ten  thousand  votes,  although  his 
electoral  vote  was  only  155  to  214  for  his  opponent. 

Whether  Garfield  would  have  been  able  to  consolidate 
his  somewhat  shattered  party  by  effective  leadership  is  a 
matter  of  speculation,  for,  on  July  2,  1881,  about  four 
month%  after  his  inauguration,  he  was  shot  by  Charles 
J.  Guiteau,  a  disappointed  and  half-crazed  office  seeker, 
and  he  died  on  September  19.  His  successor,  Vice 
President  Arthur,  though  a  man  of  considerable  ability, 
who  managed  his  office  with  more  acumen  and  common 
honesty  than  his  opponents  attributed  to  him,  was  un 
able  to  clear  away  the  accumulating  dissatisfaction  within 


PARTIES  AND  PARTY  ISSUES,   1877-1896      97 

his  party  or  convince  the  country  that  the  party  would 
do  its  own  reforming. 

In  fact,  Arthur,  notwithstanding  the  taint  of  " spoils" 
associated  with  his  career,  proved  to  be  by  no  means 
the  easy-going  politician  that  had  been  expected.  He 
took  a  firm  stand  against  extravagant  appropriations 
as  a  means  of  getting  rid  of  the  Treasury  surplus,  and  in 

1882  he  vetoed  a  river  and  harbor  appropriation  bill 
which  was  specially  designed  to  distribute  funds  among 
localities  on  the  basis  of  favoritism.     In  the  same  year, 
he  vetoed  a  Chinese  exclusion  act  as  violating  the  treaty 
with  China,  and  made  recommendations  as  to  changes 
which  were   accepted   by   Congress.     Arthur   also   ad 
vocated  legislation  against  the  spoils  system,  and  on 
January   16,    1883,  signed  the  Civil  Service  law.1     He 
recommended  a  revision  of  the  tariff,  including  some 
striking  reductions  in  schedules,  but  the  tariff  act  of 

1883  was  even  less  satisfactory  to  the  public  than  such 
measures  usually  are.     Judging  by  past  standards,  how 
ever,  Arthur  had  a  claim  upon  his  party  for  the  nomi 
nation  in  1884. 

But  Arthur  was  not  a  magnetic  leader,  and  the  election 
of  Grover  Cleveland  as  governor  of  New  York  in  1882 
and  Democratic  victories  elsewhere  warned  the  Repub 
licans  that  their  tenure  of  power  was  not  indefinite.  Cir 
cumspection,  however,  was  difficult.  A  " reform"  fac 
tion  had  grown  up  within  the  party,  protesting  against 
the  gross  practices  of  old  leaders  like  Conkling  and  urg 
ing  at  least  more  outward  signs  of  propriety.  In  this 

1  See  below,  p.  130. 
H 


98       CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

faction  were  Senator  Hoar  of  Massachusetts,  George 
William  Curtis,  Henry  Cabot  Lodge,  and  Theodore 
Roosevelt  —  the  last  of  whom  had  just  begun  his  political 
career  with  his  election  to  the  New  York  legislature  in 
1 88 1.  Senator  Edmunds,  of  Vermont,  was  the  leader  of 
this  group,  and  his  nomination  was  warmly  urged  in  the 
Republican  convention  at  Chicago  in  1884. 

The  hopes  of  the  Republican  reformers  were  com 
pletely  dashed,  however,  by  the  nomination  of  Elaine. 
This  " gentleman  from  Maine"  was  a  man  of  brilliant 
parts  and  the  idol  of  large  sections  of  the  country,  par 
ticularly  the  Middle  West;  but  some  suspicions  con 
cerning  his  personal  integrity  were  widely  entertained, 
and  not  without  reason,  by  a  group  of  influential  leaders 
in  his  party.  In  1876,  he  was  charged  with  having 
shared  in  the  corruption  funds  of  the  Union  Pacific  Rail 
road  Company,  and  as  Professor  Dunning  cautiously 
puts  it,  "the  facts  developed  put  Mr.  Elaine  under  grave 
suspicion  of  just  that  sort  of  wealth-getting,  if  nothing 
worse,  which  had  ruined  his  colleagues  in  the  Credit 
Mobilier."  Moreover,  Mr.  Elaine's  associations  had 
been  with  that  wing  of  his  party  which  had  been  involved 
or  implicated  in  one  scandal  after  another.  Partly  on 
this  account,  he  had  been  defeated  for  nomination  in 
1876,  when  he  was  decidedly  the  leading  aspirant  and 
again  in  1880  when  he  received  285  votes  in  the  conven 
tion.  But  in  1884,  leaders  like  Senator  Platt,  of  New 
York,  declared  "it  is  now  Elaine's  turn,"  and  he  was 
nominated  in  spite  of  a  threatened  bolt. 

The  Democrats  were  fortunate  in  their  selection  of 
Grover  Cleveland  as  their  standard  bearer.  He  had 


PARTIES  AND  PARTY  ISSUES,   1877-1896      99 

been  mayor  of  Buffalo  and  governor  of  New  York,  but 
he  had  taken  no  part  in  national  politics  and  had  the 
virtue  of  having  few  enemies  in  that  field.  He  was  not 
a  man  of  any  large  comprehension  of  the  economic  prob 
lems  of  his  age,  but  he  was  in  every  way  acceptable  to 
financiers  in  New  York,  for  he  had  showed  his  indifference 
to  popular  demands  by  vetoing  a  five-cent  fare  bill  for 
the  New  York  City  elevated  roads  which  were  then  being 
watered  and  manipulated  by  astute  speculators,  like 
Jay  Gould.  Moreover,  Mr.  Cleveland  possessed  cer 
tain  qualities  of  straightforwardness  and  homely  honesty 
which  commended  him  to  a  nation  wearied  of  scandalous 
revelations  and  the  malodorous  spoils  system. 

These  qualities  drew  to  Cleveland  the  support  of  a 
group  of  eminent  Republicans,  like  Carl  Schurz  who  had 
been  Secretary  of  the  Interior  under  Hayes,  George 
William  Curtis,  the  civil  service  reformer,  Henry  Ward 
Beecher,  and  William  Everett,  who  were  nicknamed 
"Mugwumps"  from  an  Indian  word  meaning  "chief." 
Although  the  "reformers"  talked  a  great  deal  about 
"purity"  in  politics,  the  campaign  of  1884  was  prin 
cipally  over  personalities ;  and,  as  a  contemporary  news 
paper  put  it,  it  took  on  the  tone  of  "a  pothouse  quarrel." 
There  was  no  real  division  over  issues,  as  will  be  seen 
by  a  comparison  of  platforms,  and  scandalous  rumors 
respecting  the  morals  of  the  two  candidates  were  freely 
employed  as  campaign  arguments.  Indeed,  the  spirit 
of  the  fray  is  reflected  in  the  words  of  the  Democratic 
platform:  "The  Republican  party,  so  far  as  principle  is 
concerned,  is  a  reminiscence.  In  practice,  it  is  an  or 
ganization  for  enriching  those  who  control  its  machinery. 


ioo     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

The  frauds  and  jobbery  which  have  been  brought  to 
light  in  every  department  of  the  government  are  suffi 
cient  to  have  called  for  reform  within  the  Republican 
party;  yet  those  in  authority,  made  'reckless  by  the 
long  possession  of  power,  have  succumbed  to  its  cor 
rupting  influence  and  have  placed  in  nomination  a 
ticket  against  which  the  independent  portion  of  the 
party  are  in  open  revolt.  Therefore  a  change  is  de 
manded."  Having  enjoyed  no  opportunities  for  cor 
ruption  worthy  of  mention,  except  in  New  York  City 
where  they  had  reaped  a  good  harvest  during  the  sun 
shine,  the  Democrats  could  honestly  pose  as  the  party 
of  " purity  in  politics." 

Their  demand  for  a  change  was  approved  by  the  voters, 
for  Cleveland  received  219  electoral  votes  as  against 
182  cast  for  Elaine.  A  closer  analysis  of  the  vote,  how 
ever,  shows  no  landslide  to  the  Democrats,  for  had  New 
York  been  shifted  to  the  Republican  column,  the  result 
would  have  been  218  for  Elaine  and  183  for  Cleveland. 
And  the  Democratic  victory  in  New  York  was  so  close 
that  a  second  count  was  necessary,  upon  which  it  was 
discovered  that  the  successful  candidate  had  only  about 
eleven  hundred  votes  more  than  the  vanquished  Elaine. 
Taking  the  country  as  a  whole,  the  Democrats  had  a 
plurality  of  a  little  more  than  twenty  thousand  votes. 

Cleveland's  administration  was  beset  by  troubles 
from  the  beginning.  The  civil  service  reformers  were 
early  disappointed  with  his  performances,  as  they  might 
have  expected.  It  is  true  that  the  Democratic  party 
had  posed  in  general  as  the  party  of  " reform,"  because 
forsooth  having  no  patronage  to  dispense  nor  favors 


PARTIES  AND   PARTY 

to  grant  it  could  readily  make  a  virtue  of  necessity ;  but 
it  is  fair  to  say  that  the  party  had  in  fact  been  somewhat 
noncommittal  on  civil  service  reform,  and  Cleveland, 
though  friendly,  was  hardly  to  be  classed  as  ardent. 
The  test  came  soon  after  his  inauguration.  More  than 
one  hundred  thousand  Federal  offices  were  in  the  hands 
of  Republicans ;  the  Senate  which  had  to  pass  upon 
the  President's  chief  nominations  was  Republican  and 
the  clash  between  the  two  authorities  was  spectacu 
lar.  The  pressure  of  Democrats  for  office  was  naturally 
strong,  and  although  the  civil  service  reformers  got  a 
few  crumbs  of  comfort,  the  bald  fact  stood  forth  that 
within  two  years  only  about  one  third  of  the  former 
officeholders  remained.  "Of  the  chief  officers,"  says 
Professor  Dewey,  "including  the  fourth  class  post 
masters,  collectors,  land  officers,  numbering  about 
58,000,  over  45,000  were  changed.  All  of  the  85  in 
ternal  revenue  collectors  were  displaced ;  and  of  the  1 1 1 
collectors  of  customs,  100  were  removed  or  not  reap- 
pointed." 

Cleveland's  executive  policy  was  negative  rather  than 
positive.  He  vigorously  applied  the  veto  to  private 
pension  bills.  From  the  foundation  of  the  government 
until  1897,  it  appears  that  265  such  bills  were  denied 
executive  approval;  and  of  these  five  were  vetoed  by 
Grant  and  260  by  Cleveland  —  nearly  all  of  the  latter 's 
negatives  being  in  his  first  administration.  Cleveland 
also  vetoed  a  general  dependent  pension  bill  in  1887 
on  the  ground  that  it  was  badly  drawn  and  ill  considered. 
Although  his  enemies  attempted  to  show  that  he  was 
hostile  to  the  old  soldiers,  his  vetoes  were  in  fact  based 


AMERICAN  HISTORY 

rather  upon  a  careful  examination  of  the  merits  of  the 
several  acts  which  showed  extraordinary  carelessness, 
collusion,  and  fraud.  At  all  events,  the  Grand  Army 
Encampment  in  1887  refused  to  pass  a  resolution  of 
censure.  Cleveland  also  killed  the  river  and  harbor 
bill  of  1887  by  a  pocket  veto,  and  he  put  his  negative 
on  a  measure,  passed  the  following  year,  returning  to 
the  treasuries  of  the  northern  states  nearly  all  of  the 
direct  taxes  which  they  had  paid  during  the  Civil  War 
in  support  of  the  Federal  government. 

On  the  constructive  side,  Cleveland's  first  adminis 
tration  was  marked  by  a  vigorous  land  policy  under 
which  upwards  of  80,000,000  acres  of  land  were  recovered 
from  private  corporations  and  persons  who  had  secured 
their  holdings  illegally.  He  was  also  the  first  Presi 
dent  to  treat  the  labor  problem  in  a  special  message 
(1886) ;  and  he  thus  gave  official  recognition  to  a  new 
force  in  politics,  although  the  sole  outcome  of  his  recom 
mendations  was  the  futile  law  of  1888  providing 
for  the  voluntary  arbitration  of  disputes  between  rail 
ways  and  their  employees.  The  really  noteworthy 
measure  of  his  first  administration  was  the  interstate 
commerce  law  of  1887,  but  that  could  hardly  be  called 
a  partisan  achievement.1 

Holding  his  place  by  no  overwhelming  mandate  and 
having  none  of  those  qualities  of  brilliant  leadership 
which  arouse  the  multitude,  Cleveland  was  unable 
to  intrench  his  party,  and  he  was  forced  to  surrender 

1  Below,  p.  133.  The  tenure  of  office  law  was  repealed  in  1887.  The 
presidential  succession  act  was  passed  in  1886. 


PARTIES  AND   PARTY  ISSUES,    1877-1896     103 

his  office  at  the  end  of  four  years'  tenure,  although  his 
party  showed  its  confidence  by  renominating  him  in 
1888.  He  had  a  Democratic  House  during  his  adminis 
tration,  but  he  was  embarrassed  by  party  divisions  there 
and  by  a  Republican  Senate.  Under  such  circumstances, 
he  was  able  to  do  little  that  was  striking,  and  in  his 
message  of  December,  1887,  he  determined  to  set  an 
issue  by  a  vigorous  attack  on  the  tariff  —  a  subject 
which  had  been  treated  in  a  gingerly  fashion  by  both 
parties  since  the  War.  While  he  disclaimed  adherence 
to  the  academic  theory  of  free  trade  as  a  principle,  his 
language  was  readily  turned  by  his  enemies  into  an 
attack  on  the  principle  of  the  protective  tariff.  Al 
though  the  performance  of  the  Democrats  in  the  passage 
of  the  Mills  tariff  bill  by  the  House  in  1888  showed  in 
fact  no  strong  leanings  toward  free  trade,  the  Republi 
cans  were  able  to  force  a  campaign  on  the  "  American 
doctrine  of  protection  for  labor  against  the  pauper  mil 
lions  of  Europe." 

On  this  issue  they  carried  the  election  of  1888.  Pass 
ing  by  Elaine  once  more,  the  Republicans  selected  Ben 
jamin  Harrison,  of  Indiana,  a  United  States  Senator,  a 
shrewd  lawyer,  and  a  reticent  politician.  Mr.  Wana- 
maker,  a  rich  Philadelphia  merchant,  was  chosen  to  raise 
campaign  funds,  and  he  successfully  discharged  the  func 
tions  of  his  office.  As  he  said  himself,  he  addressed 
the  business  men  of  the  country  in  the  following  lan 
guage  :  "How  much  would  you  pay  for  insurance  upon 
your  business  ?  If  you  were  confronted  by  from  one 
to  three  years  of  general  depression  by  a  change  in  our 
revenue  and  protective  measures  affecting  our  manu- 


io4     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

factures,  wages,  and  good  times,  what  would  you  pay 
to  be  insured  for  a  better  year  ?  "  The  appeal  was  effec 
tive  and  with  a  full  campaign  chest  and  the  astute 
Matthew  S.  Quay  as  director  of  the  national  committee, 
the  Republicans  outwitted  the  Democrats,  winning  233 
electors'  votes  against  168  for  Cleveland,  although  the 
popular  vote  for  Harrison  was  slightly  under  that  for 
his  opponent. 

Harrison's  administration  opened  auspiciously  in 
many  ways.  The  appointment  of  Elaine  as  Secretary  of 
State  was  a  diplomatic  move,  for  undoubtedly  Elaine 
was  far  more  popular  with  the  rank  and  file  of  his  party 
than  was  Harrison.  The  civil  service  reformers  were 
placated  by  the  appointment  of  Theodore  Roosevelt 
as  president  of  the  Civil  Service  Commission,  for  he 
was  a  vigorous  champion  of  reform,  who  brought  the 
whole  question  forcibly  before  the  country  by  his 
speeches  and  articles,  although  it  must  be  said  that  no 
very  startling  gains  were  made  against  the  spoils  system 
under  his  administration  of  the  civil  service  law.  It 
required  time  to  educate  the  country  to  the  point  of 
supporting  the  administrative  heads  in  resisting  the 
clamor  of  the  politicians  for  office. 

Harrison's  leadership  in  legislation  was  not  note 
worthy.  The  Republicans  were  in  power  in  the  lower 
house  in  1889  for  the  first  time  since  1881,  but  their 
majority  was  so  small  that  it  required  all  of  the  parlia 
mentary  ingenuity  which  Speaker  Reed  could  command 
to  keep  the  legislative  machine  in  operation.  Never 
theless,  several  important  measures  were  enacted  into 
law.  The  McKinley  tariff  act  based  upon  the  doctrine 


PARTIES  AND  PARTY  ISSUES,   1877-1896    105 

of  high  protection  was  passed  in  1890.  In  response  to 
the  popular  outcry  against  the  trusts,  the  Sherman  anti 
trust  law  was  enacted  the  same  year;  and  the  silver 
party  was  thrown  a  sop  in  the  form  of  the  Sherman  silver 
purchase  act.  The  veterans  of  the  Civil  War  received 
new  recognition  in  the  law  of  1890  granting  pensions 
for  all  disabled  soldiers  whether  their  disabilities  were 
incurred  in  service  or  not.  Negro  voters  were  taken 
into  account  by  an  attempt  to  get  a  new  " force  bill" 
through  Congress,  which  would  insure  a  "free  ballot 
and  a  fair  count  everywhere." 

There  had  been  nothing  decisive,  however,  about 
the  Republican  victory  in  1888,  for  a  few  thousand 
votes  in  New  York  changed  the  day  as  four  years  be 
fore.  Harrison  had  not  proved  to  be  a  very  popular 
candidate,  and  there  was  nothing  particularly  brilliant 
or  striking  about  his  administration  to  enhance  his 
reputation.  He  was  able  to  secure  a  renomination  in 
1892,  largely  because  he  controlled  so  many  omcehoftl- 
ing  delegates  to  the  Republican  convention,  and  there 
was  no  other  weighty  candidate  in  the  field,  Elaine 
being  unwilling  to  make  an  open  fight  at  the  primaries. 

In  the  second  contest  with  Cleveland,  Harrison  was 
badly  worsted,  receiving  only  145  electoral  votes  against 
277  cast  for  the  Democratic  candidate  and  22  for  the 
Populist,  Weaver.  The  campaign  was  marked  by  no 
special  incidents,  for  both  Cleveland  and  Harrison  had 
been  found  safe  and  conservative  and  there  was  no 
very  sharp  division  over  issues.  The  tariff,  it  is  true, 
was  vigorously  discussed,  but  Cleveland  made  it  clear 


io6     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

that  no  general  assault  would  be  made  on  any  protected 
interests.  The  million  votes  cast  for  the  Populist 
candidate,  however,  was  a  solemn  warning  that  the 
old  game  of  party  see-saw  over  personalities  could  not 
go  on  indefinitely.  The  issues  springing  from  the  great 
economic  revolution  were  emerging,  not  clearly  and 
sharply,  but  rather  in  a  vague  unrest  and  discontent  with 
the  old  parties  and  their  methods. 

President  Cleveland  went  into  power  for  the  second 
time  on  what  appeared  to  be  a  wave  of  business  pros 
perity,  but  those  who  looked  beneath  the  surface  knew 
that  serious  financial  and  industrial  difficulties  were 
pending.  Federal  revenues  were  declining  and  a  deficit 
was  staring  the  government  in  the  face  at  a  time  when 
there  was,  for  several  reasons,  a  stringency  in  the  gold 
market.  The  Treasury  gold  reserve  was  already  rapidly 
diminishing,  and  Harrison  was  on  the  point  of  selling 
bonds  when  the  inauguration  of  Cleveland  saved  the 
day  for  him.  Congress  was  deadlocked  on  the  money 
question,  though  called  in  a  special  session  to  grant 
relief;  and  Cleveland  at  length  resorted  to  the  sale  of 
bonds  under  an  act  of  1875  to  procure  gold  for  the 
Treasury.  The  first  sale  was  made  in  January,  1894, 
and  the  financiers,  to  pay  for  the  bonds,  drew  nearly 
half  of  the  amount  of  gold  out  of  the  Treasury  itself. 

The  "endless  chain"  system  of  selling  bonds  to  get 
gold  for  the  Treasury,  only  to  have  it  drawn  out  immedi 
ately,  aroused  a  great  hue  and  cry  against  the  financial 
interests.  In  November,  1894,  a  second  sale  was  made 
with  similar  results,  and  in  February,  1895,  Cleveland 
in  sheer  desperation  called  in  Mr.  J.  P.  Morgan  and 


PARTIES  AND  PARTY  ISSUES,   1877-1896    107 

arranged  for  the  purchase  of  gold  at  a  fixed  price  by  the 
issue  of  bonds,  with  an  understanding  that  the  bankers 
would  do  their  best  to  protect  the  Treasury.  To  the 
silver  advocates  and  the  Populists  this  was  the  climax 
of  "  Cleveland's  iniquitous  career  of  subserviency  to 
Wall  Street,"  for  it  seemed  to  show  that  the  government 
was  powerless  before  the  demands  of  the  financiers. 
This  criticism  forced  the  administration  to  throw  open 
the  issue  of  January  6,  1896,  to  the  public,  and  the  result 
was  decidedly  advantageous  to  the  government  —  ap 
parently  an  indictment  of  Cleveland's  policy.  Congress 
in  the  meantime  did  nothing  to  relieve  the  administra 
tion. 

While  the  government  was  wrestling  with  the  finan 
cial  problem,  the  country  was  in  the  midst  of  an  indus 
trial  crisis.  The  number  of  bankruptcies  rose  with 
startling  rapidity,  hundreds  of  factories  were  closed, 
and  idle  men  thronged  the  streets  hunting  for  work. 
According  to  a  high  authority,  Professor  D.  R.  Dewey, 
"  never  before  had  the  evil  of  unemployment  been  so 
widespread  in  the  United  States."  It  was  so  pressing 
that  Jacob  Coxey,  a  business  man  from  Ohio,  planned  a 
march  of  idle  men  on  Washington  in  1894  to  demand 
relief  at  the  hands  of  the  government.  His  "army," 
as  it  was  called,  ended  in  a  fiasco,  but  it  directed  the 
attention  of  the  country  to  a  grave  condition  of  affairs. 

Reductions  in  wages  produced  severe  strikes,  one 
of  which  —  the  Pullman  strike  of  Chicago  —  led  to 
the  paralysis  of  the  railways  entering  Chicago,  because 
the  Pullman  employees  were  supported  by  the  American 
Railway  Union.  The  disorders  connected  with  the 


io8     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

strike  —  which  are  now  known  to  have  been  partially 
fomented  by  the  companies  themselves  for  the  purpose 
of  inducing  Federal  interference  —  led  President  Cleve 
land  to  dispatch  troops  to  Chicago,  against  the  ardent 
protest  of  Governor  Altgeld,  who  declared  that  the  state 
of  Illinois  was  able  to  manage  her  own  affairs  without 
intermeddling  from  Washington.  The  president  of  the 
union,  Mr.  E.  V.  Debs,  was  thrown  into  prison  for 
violating  a  "blanket  injunction"1  issued  by  the  local 
Federal  court,  and  thus  the  strike  was  broken,  leaving 
behind  it  a  legacy  of  bitterness  which  has  not  yet  dis 
appeared. 

The  most  important  piece  of  legislation  during  Cleve 
land's  second  administration  was  the  Wilson  tariff  bill 
—  a  measure  which  was  so  objectionable  to  the  Presi 
dent  that  he  could  not  sign  it,  and  it  therefore  became  law 
without  his  approval.  The  only  popular  feature  in 
it  was  the  income  tax  provision,  which  was  annulled  the 
following  year  by  the  Supreme  Court.  Having  broken 
with  his  party  on  the  money  question,  and  having  failed 
to  secure  a  revision  of  the  tariff  to  suit  his  ideas,  Cleve 
land  retired  in  1897,  and  one  of  his  party  members  de 
clared  that  he  was  "the  most  cordially  hated  Democrat 
in  the  country." 

Party  Issues 

The  tariff  was  one  of  the  issues  bequeathed  to  the 
parties  from  ante-bellum  days,  but  there  was  no  very 


1  A  judicial  order  to  all  and  sundry  forbidding  them  to  interfere  with 
the  movement  of  the  trains. 


PARTIES  AND  PARTY  ISSUES,   1877-1896    109 

sharply  defined  battle  over  it  until  the  campaign  of 
1888.  The  Republicans,  in  their  platform  of  1860, 
had  declared  that  "  sound  policy  requires  such  an  ad 
justment  of  these  imposts  as  to  encourage  the  develop 
ment  of  the  industrial  interests  of  the  whole  country"; 
and  although  from  time  to  time  they  advocated  tariff 
reductions,  they  remained  consistently  a  protectionist 
party.  The  high  war-tariffs,  however,  were  revenue 
measures,  although  the  protection  feature  was  by  no 
means  lost  sight  of.  In  the  campaign  of  1864,  both 
parties  were  silent  on  the  question ;  four  years  later 
it  again  emerged  in  the  Democratic  platform,  but  it 
was  not  hotly  debated  in  the  ensuing  contest.  The 
Democrats  demanded  "a  tariff  for  revenue  upon  foreign 
imports  and  such  equal  taxation  under  the  internal 
revenue  laws  as  will  afford  incidental  protection  to  do 
mestic  manufactures." 

From  that  campaign  forward  the  Democrats  ap 
peared  to  favor  a  "  re  venue  tariff"  in  their  platforms. 
It  is  true  they  accepted  the  Liberal  Republican  plat 
form  in  1872,  which  frankly  begged  the  question  by  ac 
knowledging  the  wide  differences  of  opinion  on  the 
subject  and  remitted  the  discussion  of  the  matter  "to 
the  people  in  their  congressional  districts  and  the  deci 
sion  of  Congress  thereon."  But  in  1876,  the  Democrats 
came  back  to  the  old  doctrine  and  demanded  "that  all 
custom-house  taxation  shall  be  only  for  revenue."  In 
their  victorious  campaign  of  1884,  however,  they  were 
vague.  They  pledged  themselves  "to  revise  the  tariff 
in  a  spirit  of  fairness  to  all  interests";  but  they  prom 
ised,  in  making  reductions,  not  "to  injure  any  domestic 


no     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

industries,  but  rather  to  promote  their  healthy  growth," 
and  to  be  mindful  of  capital  and  labor  at  every  step. 
Subject  to  these  "limitations"  they  favored  confining 
taxation  to  public  purposes  only.  It  was  small  wonder 
that  Democratic  orators  during  the  campaign  could 
promise  "no  disturbance  of  business  in  case  of  victory." 
Cleveland,  in  the  beginning  of  his  administration,  faith 
fully  followed  his  platform,  for  in  his  first  message  he 
"placed  the  need  of  tax  reduction  solely  on  the  ground 
of  excess  revenue  and  declared  that  there  was  no  occasion 
for  a  discussion  of  the  wisdom  or  expediency  of  the  pro 
tective  system."  But  within  two  years  he  had  seen 
a  new  light,  and  he  devoted  his  message  of  December, 
1887,  exclusively  to  a  discussion  of  the  tariff  issue,  in 
vague  and  uncertain  language  it  is  true,  but  still  char 
acterized  by  such  a  ringing  denunciation  of  the  "vicious, 
illegal,  and  inequitable"  system  of  taxation  then  in 
vogue,  that  the  Republicans  were  able  to  call  it,  with 
some  show  of  justification,  a  "free  trade  document." 
The  New  York  Tribune  announced  with  evident  glee 
that  'Cleveland  had  made  "the  issue  boldly  and  dis 
tinctly  and  that  the  theories  and  aims  of  the  ultra- 
opponents  of  protection  have  a  new  and  zealous  advo 
cate."  Of  course,  Cleveland  hotly  denied  that  he  was 
trying  to  commit  his  party  to  a  simple  doctrine  of  free 
trade  or  even  the  old  principle  of  the  platform,  "tariff 
for  revenue  only."  Moreover,  the  Democrats,  in  their 
platform  of  the  following  year,  while  indorsing  Cleve 
land's  messages,  renewed  the  tariff  pledges  of  their 
last  platform  and  promised  to  take  "labor"  into  a  care 
ful  consideration  in  any  revision. 


PARTIES  AND   PARTY  ISSUES,    1877-1896     in 

In  spite  of  the  equivocal  position  taken  by  the  Demo 
crats,  the  Republicans  made  great  political  capital  out 
of  the  affair,  apparently  on  the  warranted  assumption 
that  the  voters  would  not  read  Cleveland's  message  or 
the  platform  of  his  party.  In  their  declaration  of  prin 
ciples  in  1888,  the  Republicans  made  the  tariff  the  lead 
ing  issue :  "We  are  uncompromisingly  in  favor  of  the 
American  system  of  protection.^  We  protest  against 
its  destruction,  as  proposed  by  the  President  and  his 
party.  They  serve  the  interests  of  Europe;  we  will 
support  the  interest  of  America.  We  accept  the  issue 
and  confidently  appeal  to  the  people  for  their  judgment. 
The  protective  system  must  be  maintained.  .  .  .  We 
favor  the  entire  repeal  of  internal  taxes  rather  than  the 
surrender  of  any  part  of  our  protective  system,  at  the 
joint  behest  of  the  whisky  trusts  and  the  agents  of  foreign 
manufacturers."  Again,  in  1892,  the  Republicans  at 
tempted  to  make  the  tariff  the  issue  :  "  We  reaffirm  the 
American  doctrine  of  protection.  We  call  attention  to 
its  growth  abroad.  We  maintain  that  the  prosperous 
condition  of  our  country  is  largely  due  to  the  wise  revenue 
legislation  of  the  Republican  Congress,"  i.e.  the  Mc- 
Kinley  bill. 

The  effect  of  this  Republican  hammering  on  the  sub 
ject  was  to  bring  out  a  solemn  declaration  on  the  part 
of  the  Democrats.  "We  denounce,"  they  say  in  1892, 
"the  Republican  protection  as  a  fraud,  a  robbery  of  the 
great  majority  of  the  American  people  for  the  benefit 
of  the  few.  We  declare  it  to  be  a  fundamental  principle 
of  the  Democratic  party  that  the  Federal  government 
has  no  constitutional  power  to  impose  and  collect  tariff 


ii2     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

duties,  except  for  the  purposes  of  revenue  only,  and  we 
demand  that  the  collection  of  such  taxes  shall  be  limited 
to  the  necessities  of  the  government  when  honestly  and 
economically  administered."  Although  elected  on  this 
platform,  the  Democrats  did  not  regard  their  mandate 
as  warranting  a  serious  attack  on  the  protective  system, 
for  the  Wilson  tariff  act  of  1894  was  so  disappointing  to 
moderate  tariff  reformers  that  Cleveland  refused  to 
sign  it. 

A  close  analysis  of  the  platforms  and  performances 
of  the  parties  from  1876  to  1896  shows  no  clear  align 
ment  at  all  on  the  tariff.  Both  parties  promise  reduc 
tions,  but  neither  is  specific  as  to  details.  The  Republi 
cans,  while  making  much  of  the  protective  system,  could 
not  ignore  the  demand  for  tariff  reform ;  and  the  Demo 
crats,  while  repeating  the  well-worn  phrases  about 
tariff  for  revenue,  were  unable  to  overlook  the  fact  that 
a  drastic  assault  upon  the  protective  interests  would  mean 
their  undoing.  In  Congress,  the  Republicans  made 
no  serious  efforts  to  lower  the  duties,  and  the  attempts 
of  the  Democrats  produced  meager  results. 

Among  the  new  issues  raised  by  the  economic  revolu 
tion  was  the  control  of  giant  combinations  of  capital. 
Although  some  of  the  minor  parties  had  declaimed  against 
trusts  as  early  as  1876,  and  the  Democratic  party,  in 
1884,  had  denounced  "land  monopolies,"  industrial 
combinations  did  not  figure  as  distinct  issues  in  the 
platforms  of  the  old  parties  until  1888.  In  that  year, 
the  Democrats  vaguely  referred  to  unnecessary,  taxation 
as  a  source  of  trusts  and  combinations,  which,  "while 


PARTIES  AND   PARTY  ISSUES,   1877-1896     113 

unduly  enriching  the  few  that  combine,  rob  the  body  of 
our  citizens  by  depriving  them  of  the  benefits  of  natural 
competition."  Here  appears  the  favorite  party  slogan 
that  "the  tariff  is  the  mother  of  the  trusts,"  and  the  in 
timation  that  the  remedy  is  the  restoration  of  "  natural 
competition"  by  a  reduction  of  the  tariff.  The  Republi 
cans  in  1888  also  recognized  the  existence  of  the  trust 
problem  by  declaring  against  all  combinations  designed 
to  control  trade  arbitrarily,  and  recommended  to  Con 
gress  and  the  states  legislation  within  their  jurisdic 
tions  to  "prevent  the  execution  of  all  schemes  to  oppress 
the  people  by  undue  charges  on  their  supplies  or  by  un 
just  rates  for  the  transportation  of  their  products  to 
market." 

Both  old  parties  returned  to  the  trust  question  again 
in  1892.  The  Democrats  recognized  "in  the  trusts  and 
combinations  which  are  designed  to  enable  capital  to 
secure  more  than  its  just  share  of  the  joint  product  of 
capital  and  labor,  a  natural  consequence  of  the  prohibi 
tive  taxes  which  prevent  the  free  competition  which  is 
the  life  of  honest  trade,  but  we  believe  the  worst  evils 
can  be  abated  by  law."  Thereupon  follows  a  demand 
for  additional  legislation  restraining  and  controlling 
trusts.  The  Republicans  simply  reaffirmed  their  dec 
laration  of  1888,  indorsed  the  Sherman  anti- trust 
law  already  enacted  by  Congress  in  1890,  and  favored" 
new  legislation  remedying  defects  and  rendering  the 
enforcement  of  the  law  more  complete. 

The  railway  issue  emerged  in  1880  when  the  Republi 
cans,  boasting  that  under  their  administration  railways 


ii4     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

had  increased  "from  thirty- two  thousand  miles  in  1860 
to  eighty- two  thousand  miles  in  1879,'"  pronounced 
against  any  further  grants  of  public  domain  to  railway 
corporations.  The  Democrats  went  on  record  against 
discriminations  in.  favor  of  transportation  lines,  but 
left  the  subject  with  that  pronouncement.  Four  years 
later  the  subject  had  taken  on  more  precision.  The 
Republicans  favored  the  public  regulation  of  railway 
corporations  and  indorsed  legislation  preventing  unjust 
discriminations  and  excessive  charges  for  transportation, 
but  in  the  campaign  of  1888  the  overshadowing  tariff 
issue  enabled  them  to  omit  references  to  railway  regu 
lation.  The  Democrats  likewise  ignored  the  subject 
in  1884  and  1888.  In  1892  the  question  was  over 
looked  by  the  platforms  of  both  parties,  although  the 
minor  parties  were  loudly  demanding  action  on  the 
part  of  the  Federal  Government.  The  old  parties 
agreed,  however,  on  the  necessity  of  legislation  pro 
tecting  the  life  and  limb  of  employees  engaged  in  inter 
state  transportation. 

Even  before  the  Civil  War,  the  labor  vote  had  become 
a  factor  that  could  not  be  ignored,  and  both  old  parties 
consistently  conciliated  it  by  many  references.  The 
Republicans  in  1860  commended  that  "policy  of  national 
exchanges  which  secures  to  the  workingmen  liberal 
wages."  The  defense  of  the  protective  system  was 
gradually  shifted  by  the  Republicans,  until,  judging  from 
the  platforms,  its  continuation  was  justifiable  prin 
cipally  on  account  of  their  anxiety  to  safeguard  the 
American  workingman  against  "the  pauper  labor  of 


PARTIES  AND   PARTY  ISSUES,    1877-1896     115 

Europe."  The  Democrats  could  not  overlook  the  force 
of' this  appeal,  and  in  their  repeated  demands  for  the 
reduction  of  the  tariff  they  announced  that  no  devotion 
to  free  trade  principles  would  allow  them  to  pass  legis 
lation  which  might  put  American  labor  "in  competition 
with  the  underpaid  millions  of  the  Old  World."  In 
1880,  the  Democratic  party  openly  professed  itself  the 
friend  of  labor  and  the  laboring  man  and  pledged  itself 
to  "protect  him  against  the  cormorant  and  the  commune." 
In  their  platform  of  1888,  the  Democrats  promised  to 
make  "due  allowance  for  the  difference  between  the 
wages  of  American  and  foreign  labor"  in  their  tariff 
revisions ;  and  in  1892  they  deplored  the  fact  that  under 
the  McKinley  tariff  there  had  been  ten  reductions  in 
the  wages  of  the  workingmen  to  one  increase.  In  the 
latter  year,  the  Republicans  urged  that  on  articles 
competing  with  American  products  the  duties  should 
"equal  the  difference  between  wages  abroad  and  at 
home." 

Among  the  more  concrete  offerings  to  labor  were 
the  promises  of  homesteads  in  the  West  by  the  Republi 
cans  —  promises  which  the  Democrats  reiterated ;  pro 
tection  against  Chinese  and  coolie  labor,  particularly 
in  the  West,  safety-appliance  laws  applicable  to  inter 
state  carriers,  the  establishment  of  a  labor  bureau  at 
Washington,  the  prohibition  of  the  importation  of  alien 
laborers  under  contract,  and  the  abolition  of  prison  con 
tract  labor.  On  these  matters  there  was  no  marked 
division  between  the  two  old  parties ;  each  advocated 
measures  of  its  own  in  general  terms  and  denounced 
the  propositions  of  the  other  in  equally  general  terms. 


n6      CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

The  money  question  bulked  large  in  the  platforms, 
but  until  1896  there  was  nothing  like  a  clean-cut  divi 
sion.1  Both  parties  hedged  and  remained  consistently 
vague.  The  Republicans  in  1888  declared  in  favor  of 
"the  use  of  both  gold  and  silver  as  money,"  and  con 
demned  "the  policy  of  the  Democratic  administration 
in  its  efforts  to  demonetize  silver."  Again,  in  1892, 
the  Republicans  declared:  "The  American  people,  from 
tradition  and  interest,  favor  bimetallism,  and  the  Re 
publican  party  demands  the  use  of  both  gold  and  silver 
as  standard  money,  with  such  restriction  and  under  such 
provisions,  to  be  determined  by  legislation,  as  will  se 
cure  the  maintenance  of  the  parity  of  values  of  the  two 
metals,  so  that  the  purchasing  and  debt-paying  power 
of  the  dollar,  whether  of  silver,  gold,  or  paper,  shall  be 
at  all  times  equal."  The  Democrats  likewise  hedged 
their  profession  of  faith  about  with  limitations  and  pro 
visions.  They  declared  in  favor  of  both  metals  and  no 
discrimination  for  mintage ;  but  the  unit  of  coinage  of 
both  metals  "must  be  of  equal  intrinsic  or  exchangeable 
value,  or  be  adjusted  through  international  agreement 
or  by  such  safeguards  of  legislation  as  shall  insure  the 
maintenance  of  the  parity  of  the  two  metals."  Thus 
both  of  the  platforms  of  1892  are  paragons  of  ambiguity. 

1See  below,  p.  119. 


CHAPTER  V 

TWO  DECADES   OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION,    1877-1896 

Financial  Questions 

IT  was  inevitable  that  financial  measures  should 
occupy  the  first  place  in  the  legislative  labors  of  Congress 
for  a  long  time  after  the  War.  That  conflict  had  left 
an  enormous  debt  of  more  than  two  billion  eight  hundred 
million  dollars,  and  the  taxes  were  not  only  high,  but 
they  reached  nearly  every  source  which  was  open  to 
the  Federal  government.  There  were  outstanding  more 
than  four  hundred  millions  of  legal  tender  treasury 
notes,  " greenbacks,"  which  had  seriously  depreciated 
and,  on  account  of  their  variability  as  compared  with 
gold,  offered  unlimited  opportunities  for  speculation  and 
jugglery  in  Wall  Street  —  of  which  Jay  Gould's  attempt 
to  corner  the  gold  market  and  the  precipitation  of  the 
disaster  of  Black  Friday  in  1869  were  only  spectacular 
incidents. 

Three  distinct  problems  confronted  the  national  ad 
ministration  :  the  refunding  of  the  national  debt  at 
lower  rates  of  interest,  the  final  determination  of  the 
place  and  basis  of  the  paper  money  in  the  currency 
system,  and  the  comparative  treatment  of  gold  and 
silver  coinage.  The  first  of  these  tasks  was  undertaken 
by  Congress  during  Grant's  administration,  when,  by 

117 


n8     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

the  refunding  acts  of  1870  and  1871,  the  Treasury  was 
empowered  to  substitute  four,  four  and  one-half,  and 
five  per  cent  bonds  for  the  war  issues  at  the  high  rates 
of  five,  six,  and  even  seven  per  cent. 

The  two  remaining  problems  were  by  no  means  so 
easy  of  solution,  because  they  went  to  the  root  of  the 
financial  system  of  the  country.  Most  of  the  financial 
interests  of  the  East  were  anxious  to  return  to  a  specie 
basis  for  the  currency  by  retiring  the  legal  tender  notes 
or  by  placing  them  on  a  metallic  foundation.  The 
Treasury  under  President  Johns6n  began  to  withdraw 
the  greenbacks  from  circulation  under  authority  of  an 
act  of  Congress  passed  in  1866 ;  but  it  soon  met  the  de 
termined  resistance  of  the  paper  money  party,  which 
looked  upon  contraction  as  a  banker's  device  to  appre 
ciate  the  value  of  gold  and  reduce  the  amount  of  money 
in  circulation,  thus  bringing  low  prices  for  labor  and 
commodities.  Within  two  years  Congress  peremptorily 
stopped  the  withdrawal  of  additional  Treasury  notes.1 

Shortly  after  forbidding  the  further  retirement  of 
legal  tender  notes,  Congress  reassured  the  hard  money 
party  by  passing,  on  March  18,  1869,  an  act  promising, 
on  the  faith  of  the  United  States,  to  pay  in  coin  "all 
obligations  not  otherwise  redeemable,"  and  to  redeem 
the  legal  tender  notes  in  specie  "as  soon  as  practicable." 
A  further  gain  for  hard  money  was  made  in  1875  by  the 
passage  of  the  Resumption  Act,  providing  that  on  and 
after  January  i,  1879,  "the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
shall  redeem  in  coin  the  United  States  legal  tender  notes 
then  outstanding,  on  their  presentation  for  redemption 

1  See  below,  p.  123. 


FEDERAL  LEGISLATION,   1877-1896  119 

at  the  office  of  the  Assistant  Treasurer  of  the  United 
States  in  the  City  of  New  York,  in  sums  of  not  less  than 
fifty  dollars."  When  the  day  set  for  redemption  arrived, 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was  prepared  with  a  large 
hoard  of  gold,  and  public  confidence  in  the  government 
was  so  high  that  comparatively  little  paper  was  pre 
sented  in  exchange  for  specie. 

Out  of  the  conflict  over  the  inflation  and  contrac 
tion  of  the  currency  grew  the  struggle  over  "free  silver" 
which  was  not  ended  until  the  campaign  of  1900.  To 
understand  this  controversy  we  must  go  back  beyond 
the  Civil  War.  The  Constitution,  as  drafted  in  1787, 
gives  Congress  the  power  to  coin  money  and  regulate 
the  value  thereof  and  forbids  the  states  to  issue  bills  of 
credit  or  make  anything  but  the  gold  and  silver  coin 
of  the  United  States  legal  tender  in  the  payment  of 
debts.  Nothing  is  said  in  that  instrument  about  the 
power  of  Congress  to  issue  paper  money,  and  it  is  ques 
tionable  whether  the  framers  intended  to  leave  the  door 
open  for  legal  tenders  or  notes  of  any  kind. 

In  i22£j  the  new  Federal  government  began  to  coin 
gold  and  silver  at  the  ratio  of_i_to_j^l  but  it  was  soon 
found  that  at  this  ratio  gold  was  undervalued,  and  conse 
quently  little  or  no  gold  was  brought  to  the  Treasury 
to  be  coined.  At  length,  in  j-fe^j  -Congress,  by  law, 
fixed  the  ratio  between  the  two  metals  approximately  at 
i6jto_ij  but  this  was  found  to  be  an  overvaluation  of 
gold  or  an  undervaluation  of  silver,  as  some  said,  and 
as  a  result  silver  was  not  brought  to  the  Treasury  for 
coinage  and  almost  dropped  out  of  the  monetary  system. 
Finally,  in  1873,  when  the  silver  dollar  was  already  prac- 


120     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

tically  out  of  circulation,  Congress  discontinued  the 
coinage  of  the  standard  silver  dollar  altogether  —  "  de 
monetized"  it  —  and  left  gold  as  the  basis  of  the  mone 
tary  system.1 

It  happened  about  this  time  that  the  price  of  silver 
began  to  decline  steadily,  until  within  twenty  years 
it  was  about  half  the  price  it  was  in  1870.  Some  men 
attributed  this  fall  in  the  price  of  silver  to  the  fact 
that  Germany  had  demonetized  it  in  1871,  and  that 
about  the  same  time  rich  deposits  of  silver  were  dis 
covered  in  the  United  States.  Others  declared  that 
silver  had  not  fallen  so  much  in  price,  but  that  gold,  in 
which  it  was  measured,  had  risen  on  account  of  the  fact 
that  silver  had  been  demonetized  and  gold  given  a  monop 
oly  of  the  coinage  market.  On  this  matter  Republi 
cans  and  Democrats  were  both  divided,  for  it  brought 
a  new  set  of  economic  antagonisms  into  play  —  the 
debtor  and  the  creditor  —  as  opposed  to  the  antagonisms 
growing  out  of  slavery  and  reconstruction. 

Some  Republicans,  like  Senator  Morrill,  of  Vermont, 
firmly  believed  that  no  approach  could  be  made  to  a 
genuine  bimetallic  currency,  both  metals  freely  and 
equally  circulating,  without  the  cooperation  of  the 
leading  commercial  nations  of  the  world ;  and  they  also 
went  so  far  as  to  doubt  whether  it  would  be  possible 
even  then  to  adjust  the  "fickle  ratio"  finely  enough  to 
prevent  supply  and  demand  from  driving  one  or  the  other 
metal  out  of  circulation.  Other  Republicans,  like 

1  The  Silver  Democrats  declared  that  this  demonetization  was  secretly 
brought  about  by  a  "  conspiracy  "  on  the  part  of  gold  advocates,  and 
named  the  act  in  question  "  the  crime  of  '73." 


FEDERAL  LEGISLATION,   1877-1896          121 

Elaine,  declared  that  the  Constitution  required  Con 
gress  to  make  both  gold  and  silver  coin  the  money  of 
the  land,  and  that  the  only  question  was  how  best  to 
adjust  the  ratio.  In  a  speech  in  the  Senate  on  February 
7,  1878,  Elaine  said:  "I  believe  then  if  Germany  were 
to  remonetize  silver  and  the  kingdoms  and  states  of  the 
Latin  Union  were  to  reopen  their  mints,  silver  would 
at  once  resume  its  former  relation  with  gold.  ...  I  be 
lieve  the  struggle  now  going  on  in  this  country  and  in 
other  countries  for  a  single  gold  standard  would,  if 
successful,  produce  widespread  disaster  throughout  the 
commercial  world.  The  destruction  of  silver  as  money 
and  establishment  of  gold  as  the  sole  unit  of  value  must 
have  a  ruinous  effect  on  all  forms  of  property,  except 
those  investments  which  yield  a  fixed  return  in  money" 
It  was  this  exception  made  by  Elaine  that  formed  the 
crux  of  the  whole  issue.  The  contest  was  largely 
between  creditors  and  debtors.  Indeed,  it  is  thus 
frankly  stated  by  Senator  Jones  of  Nevada  in  a  speech 
in  the  Senate  on  May  12,  1890:  "Three  fourths  of  the 
business  enterprises  of  this  country  are  conducted  on 
borrowed  capital.  Three  fourths  of  the  homes  and 
farms  that  stand  in  the  name  of  the  actual  occupants 
have  been  bought  on  time,  and  a  very  large  proportion 
of  them  are  mortgaged  for  the  payment  of  some  part  of 
the  purchase  money.  Under  the  operation  of  a  shrink 
age  in  the  volume  of  money,  this  enormous  mass  of 
borrowers,  at  the  maturity  of  their  respective  debts, 
though  nominally  paying  no  more  than  the  amount 
borrowed,  with  interest,  are,  in  reality,  in  the  amount 
of  the  principal  alone,  returning  a  percentage  of  value 


122      CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

greater  than  they  received  —  more  in  equity  than  they 
contracted  to  pay,  and  oftentimes  more  in  substance 
than  they  profited  by  the  loan.  ...  It  is  a  remarkable 
circumstance  that  throughout  the  entire  range  of  eco 
nomic  discussion  in  gold-standard  circles,  it  seems  to  be 
taken  for  granted  that  a  change  in  the  value  of  the  money 
unit  is  a  matter  of  no  significance,  and  imports  no  mis 
chief  to  society,  so  long  as  the  change  is  in  one  direction. 
Who  ever  heard  from  an  Eastern  journal  any  complaint 
against  a  contraction  of  our  money  volume,  any  admoni 
tion  that  in  a  shrinking  volume  of  money  lurk  evils  of 
the  utmost  magnitude  ?  .  .  .  In  all  discussions  of  the 
subject  the  creditors  attempt  to  brush  aside  the  equities 
involved  by  sneering  at  the  debtors."  Both  parties 
to  the  conflict  assumed  a  monopoly  of  virtue  and  eco 
nomic  wisdom,  and  the  controversy  proceeded  on  that 
plane,  with  no  concessions  except  where  necessary  to 
secure  some  practical  gain. 

By  1877,  silver  had  fallen  to  the  ratio  of  seventeen 
to_one__as  compared  with  gold,  and  silver  mine  owners 
were  anxious  to  have  the  government  buy  their  bullion 
at  the  old  rate  existing  before  the  "  demonetization "  of 
1873.  In  this  they  were  supported  by  the  farmers 
and  the  debtor  classes  generally,  who  thought  that  the 
gold  market  was  substantially  controlled  by  a  relatively 
few  financiers  and  that  the  appreciation  of  the  yellow 
metal  meant  lower  prices  for  their  commodities  and  the 
maintenance  of  high  interest  rates.  Criticism  was 
leveled  particularly  against  the  bondholders,  who  de 
manded  the  payment  of  interest  and  principal  in  gold, 
in  spite  of  the  fact  that,  at  the  time  the  bonds  were 


FEDERAL  LEGISLATION,   1877-1896  123 

issued,  the  government  had  not  demonetized  silver  and 
could  have  paid  in  silver  dollars  containing  41 2  \  grains 
each.  In  addition  to  the  holders  of  the  national  debt, 
there  were  the  owners  of  industrial,  state,  and  municipal 
bonds  and  railway  and  other  securities  who  likewise 
sought  payment  in  a  metal  that  was  appreciating  in 
value. 

In  the  Forty-fourth  Congress,  the  silver  party,  led 
by  Bland,  of  Missouri,  attempted  to  force  the  passage 
of  a  law  providing  for  the  free  and  unlimited  coinage  of 
silver  approximately  at  the  ratio  of  sixteen  to  one,  but 
their  measure  was  amended  on  the  motion  of  Allison, 
of  Iowa,  in  the  Senate,  in  such  a  manner  as  simply  to 
authorize  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  purchase 
not  less  than  two  million  nor  more  than  four  million 
dollars'  worth  of  silver  each  month  to  be  coined  into 
silver  dollars.  The  measure  thus  amended  was  vetoed 
by  Hayes,  but  was  repassed  over  his  protest  and  became 
a  law  in  1878,  popularly  known  as  the  Bland^AUis 
A£t.  The  opponents  of  contraction  were  able  to  secure 
the  passage  of  another  act  in  the  same  year  forbidding 
the  further  retirement  of  legal  tender  notes  and  provid 
ing  that  the  Treasury,  instead  of  canceling  such  notes 
on  receiving  them,  should  reissue  them  and  keep  them 
in  circulation. 

None  of  the  disasters  prophesied  by  the  gold  advo 
cates  followed  the  enactment  of  the  Bland-Allison  bill, 
but  no  one  was  satisfied  with  it.  The  value  of  silver  as 
compared  with  gold  steadi][y_declmed,  untiL  the  ratio 
wasj^wenty-two  to^oiieTn  1887.  The  silver  party  claimed 
that  the  trouble  was  not  with  Silver,  but  that  the  appre- 


i24     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

ciation  of  gold  had  been  largely  induced  by  the  govern 
ment's  discriminating  policy.  The  gold  party  pointed  to 
the  millions  of  silver  dollars  coined  and  unissued  filling  the 
mints  and  storage  vaults  to  bursting,  all  for  the  benefit  of 
the  silver  mine  owners.  The  retort  of  the  silver  party 
was  a  law  issuing  silver  certificates  in  denominations 
of  one,  two,  and  five  dollars,  in  1886.  This  was  sup 
plemented  four  years  later  by  the  Sherman  silverjpur- 
chase  act  oL-iSpo  (repealed  in  1893),  which  provided 
for  the  purchase  of  4,500,000  ounces  of  silver  monthly 
and  the  issue  of  notes  on  that  basis  redeemable  in  gold 
or  silver  at  the  discretion  of  the'  Treasury.  Congress 
took  occasion  to  declare  also  that  it  was  the  intention 
of  the  United  States  to  maintain  the  two  metals  on  a 
parity  —  a  vague  phrase  which  was  widely  used  by  both 
parties  to  conciliate  all  factions.  Neither  the  Republi 
cans  nor  the  Democrats  were  as  yet  ready  for  a  straight 
party  fight  on  the  silver  issue. 

Tariff  Legislation 

At  the  opening  of  Hayes'  administration  the  Civil 
War  tariff  was  still  in  force.  It  is  true,  there  had  been 
some  slight  reduction  in  1872,  but  this  was  offset  by 
increases  three  years  later.  During  the  two  decades 
following,  there  was  much  political  controversy  over 
protection,  as  we  have  seen,  and  there  were  three  im 
portant  revisions  of  the  protective  system :  in  1883  on 
the  initiation  of  the  Senate,  in  1890  when  the  McKinley 
bill  was  passed,  and  in  1894  when  the  Wilson  bill  was 
enacted  under  Democratic  auspices. 


FEDERAL  LEGISLATION,   1877-1896          125 

The  first  of  these  revisions  was  induced  largely  by 
the  growing  surplus  in  the  Federal  Treasury  and  the 
inability  of  Congress  to  dispose  of  it,  even  by  the  most 
extravagant  appropriations.  In  1882,  the  surplus  rose 
to  the  startling  figure  of  $145,000,000,  and  a  tariff'  com 
mission  was  appointed  to  consider,  among  other  things, 
some  method  of  cutting  down  the  revenues  by  a  revision 
of  duties.  This  commission  reported  a  revised  schedule 
of  rates  providing  for  considerable  reductions,  but  still 
on  a  highly  protective  basis.  The  House  at  that  time 
was  Republican,  and  the  Senate  was  equally  divided, 
with  two  independents  holding  the  balance  of  power. 
The  upper  house  took  the  lead  in  the  revision  and  escaped 
the  constitutional  provision  requiring  the  initiation  of 
revenue  bills  in  the  lower  house  by  tacking  their  measure 
to  a  bill  which  the  House  had  passed  at  the  preceding 
session. 

Under  the  circumstances  neither  party  was  respon 
sible  for  the  measure,  and  it  is  small  wonder  that  it  pleased 
no  one,  after  the  fashion  of  tariff  bills.  There  was  a 
slight  reduction  on  coarse  woolens,  cottons,  iron,  steel, 
and  several  other  staple  commodities,  but  not  enough  to 
place  the  industries  concerned  on  a  basis  of  competition 
with  European  manufactures.  New  England  agricul 
tural  products  were  carefully  protected,  but  the  wool 
growers  of  Ohio  and  other  middle  western  states  lost 
the  ad  valorem  duties  on  wool.  The  Democrats  in 
the  House  denounced  the  measure,  and  most  of  them 
voted  against  it  because,  they  alleged,  it  did  not  go  far 
enough.  William  McKinley,  of  Ohio,  then  beginning 
his  career,  opposed  it  on  other  grounds;  and  Senator 


126     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

Sherman  from  the  same  state  afterward  regretted  that 
he  had  not  defeated  the  bill  altogether.  The  tariff  was 
"  revised  but  not  changed,"  as  a  wag  put  it,  and  no  one 
was  enthusiastic  about  the  measure. 

Almost  immediately  attempts  were  made  to  amend 
the  law  of  1883.  For  two  years  the  Democrats,  under 
the  leadership  of  W.  R.  Morrison,  chairman  of  the  Ways 
and  Means  Committee,  pottered  about  with  the  tariff, 
but  accomplished  nothing,  partially  on  account  of  the 
opposition  of  protectionist  Democrats,  like  Randall, 
of  Pennsylvania.  In  1886,  President  Cleveland,  in 
his  second  message,  took  up  the  tariff  seriously,;  and 
under  the  leadership  of  Roger  Q.  Mills,  of  Texas,  the 
Democratic  House,  two  years  later,  passed  the  "  Mills 
bill"  only  to  see  it  die  in  the  Senate.  The  Republican 
victory  of  1888,  though  narrow,  was  a  warning  that  no 
compromise  would  be  made  with  those  who  struck  a 
blow  at  protection. 

The  Republican  House  set  to  work  upon  a  revision 
of  the  tariff  with  a  view  to  establishing  high  protection, 
and  in  May,  1890,  Mr.  McKinley,  chairman  of  the 
Ways  and  Means  Committee,  introduced  his  bill  increas 
ing  the  duties  generally.  In  the  preparation  of  this 
measure,  the  great  manufacturing  interests  had  been 
freely  consulted,  and  their  requests  for  rates  were  fre 
quently  accepted  without  change,  or  made  the  basis  for 
negotiations  with  opposing  forces,  as  in  the  case,  for 
example,  of  the  binding  twine  trust  and  the  objecting 
farmers.  On  the  insistence  of  Mr.  Elaine,  then  Secre 
tary  of  State,  a  "  reciprocity "  clause  was  introduced 
into  the  bill,  authorizing  the  President  to  place  higher 


FEDERAL  LEGISLATION,   1877-1896          127 

duties  on  certain  commodities  coming  from  other  coun 
tries,  in  case  he  deemed  their  retaliatory  tariffs  "  un 
reasonable  or  unjust." 

The  opposition  to  the  McKinley  bill  was  unusually 
violent,  and  no  opportunity  was  given  to  test  its  working 
before  the  country  swung  again  to  the  Democrats  in 
the  autumn  of  1890;  but  the  Republican  majority  in 
the  Senate  prevented  the  House  from  carrying  through 
any  of  its  attacks  on  the  system.  The  election  of  Cleve 
land  two  years  later  and  the  capture  of  the  Senate  as 
well  by  the  Democrats  seemed  to  promise  that  the  long 
standing  threat  of  a  general  downward  revision  would  be 
carried  out.  William  Wilson,  of  West  Virginia,  reported 
the  new  bill  from  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  in 
December,  1893.  Although  it  made  numerous  definite 
reductions  in  duties,  it  was  by  no  means  a  drastic  "free 
trade"  measure,  such  as  the  Republicans  had  prophesied 
in  their  campaign  speeches.  The  bill  passed  the  House 
by  a  large  majority,  with  only  a  few  Democrats  voting 
against  it.  Even  radical  Democrats  from  the  West, 
who  would  have  otherwise  demanded  further  reductions, 
were  conciliated  by  the  provision  for  a  tax  on  all  incomes 
over  $4000. 

When  the  Wilson  bill  left  the  House  of  Representa 
tives,  it  had  some  of  the  appearances  at  least  of  a  "tariff- 
for-revenue"  measure.  Reductions  had  been  made  all 
along  the  line,  not  without  regard,  of  course,  for  sec 
tional  interests,  in  memory  of  the  principle  that  the 
"tariff  is  a  local  issue."  But  the  Senate  made  short 
work  of  it.  There  the  individual  member  counted  for 
more.  He  had  the  right  to  talk  as  long  as  he  pleased, 


128      CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

and  he  could  trade  his  vote  on  schedules  in  which  he  was 
not  personally  interested  for  votes  on  his  own  schedules. 
Thus  by  forceful  and  ingenious  manipulation,  the  Wilson 
bill  was  shorn  of  its  most  drastic  features  (not  without 
some  rejoicing  in  the  House  as  well  as  in  the  Senate), 
and  it  went  to  President  Cleveland  in  such  a  form  that 
he  refused  to  accept  it  as  a  tariff  reform  measure  and 
simply  allowed  it  to  become  a  law  without  his  sig 
nature. 

The  action  of  the  Democratic  Senate  is  easily  ac 
counted  for.  Hill,  of  New  York,  was  almost  rabid  in 
his  opposition  to  the  income  tax  provision.  Louisiana 
was  a  great  sugar-growing  state,  and  her  Senators  had 
their  own  notion  as  to  what  were  the  proper  duties  on 
sugar.  Alabama  had  rising  iron  industries,  and  her 
Senators  shared  the  emotions  of  the  representatives 
from  Pennsylvania  as  the  proposed  reductions  on  iron 
products  were  contemplated.  Senator  Gorman,  of  Mary 
land,  had  no  more  heart  in  " attacking  the  interests" 
than  did  Senator  Quay,  of  Pennsylvania,  who,  by  the  way, 
used  his  "inside  information"  during  the  passage  of  the 
bill  to  make  money  by  speculating  in  sugar  stocks. 

With  glee  the  Republicans  taunted  the  Democrats 
that  their  professions  were  one  thing  and  their  perform 
ances  another.  "This  is  not  a  protective  bill,"  said 
Senator  O.  H.  Platt,  of  Connecticut.  "  It  is  not  in  any 
sense  a  recognition  of  the  doctrine  of  protection  high  or 
low.  It  is  not  a  bill  for  revenue  with  incidental  protec 
tion.  It  is  a  bill  (and  the  truth  may  as  well  be  told  in 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States)  which  proceeds  upon 
free  trade  principles,  except  as  to  such  articles  as  it  has 


FEDERAL  LEGISLATION,   1877-1896  129 

been  necessary  to  levy  protective  duties  upon  to  get 
the  votes  of  the  Democratic  Senators  to  pass  the  bill. 
...  No  such  marvel  has  ever  been  seen  under  the  sun 
as  all  the  Democratic  Senators,  with  the  possible  ex 
ception  of  the  Senator  from  Texas  (Mr.  Mills),  giving 
way  to  this  demand  of  the  sugar  trust.  How  this  cham 
ber  has  rung  with  the  denunciations  of  the  sugar  trust ! 
How  the  ears  of  waiting  and  listening  multitudes  in 
Democratic  political  meetings  have  been  vexed  with 
reiterated  denunciations  of  this  sugar  trust !  And  here 
every  Democratic  Senator,  with  one  exception,  is  ready 
to  vote  for  a  prohibitive  duty  upon  refined  sugar." 

Twenty  years  of  tariff  agitation  and  tinkering  had 
thus  ended  in  general  dissatisfaction  with  the  promises 
and  performances  of  both  parties.  The  Republicans 
had  advanced  to  a  position  of  high  protection  based 
principally  upon  the  demands  of  manufacturing  inter 
ests  themselves,  modified  by  such  protests  on  the  part 
of  consumers  as  became  vocal  and  effective  in  politics. 
The  Democrats  had  been  driven,  under  Mr.  Cleveland's 
leadership,  to  what  seemed  to  be  a  disposition  to  reduce 
the  tariff  to  something  approaching  a  revenue  basis, 
but  when  it  came  to  an  actual  performance,  their  prac 
tical  views,  as  manifested  in  the  Wilson- Gorman  act, 
were  not  far  behind  those  of  the  opposing  party.  Rep 
resentatives  of  both  parties  talked  as  if  the  issue  was  a 
contest  between  tariff-for-revenue  and  protection,  but 
in  fact  it  was  not.  The  question  was  really,  "  which  of 
the  several  regions  shall  receive  the  most  protection?" 
Of  attempts  to  get  the  tariff  upon  a  " scientific  basis," 
striking  a  balance  among  all  the  interests  of  the  country, 


i3o     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

there  was  none.  Ten  years  of  political  warfare  over 
free  silver  and  imperialism  were  to  elapse  before  there 
could  be  a  renewed  examination  of  protection  as  a 
system. 

The  Civil  Service  Law  of  1883 

The  "spoils  system"  of  making  Federal  offices  the 
reward  for  partisan  services  began  to  draw  a  strong 
fire  of  criticism  in  Grant's  first  administration.  It  was 
natural  that  the  Democrats  should  view  with  disfavor 
a  practice  which  excluded  them  entirely  from  serving 
their  country  in  an  officiarcapacity,  and  the  reformers 
regarded  it  as  a  menace  to  American  institutions  because 
it  was  the  basis  of  a  " political  machine"  which  con 
trolled  primaries  and  elections  and  shut  out  the  discus 
sion  of  real  issues.  In  response  to  this  combined  attack, 
Congress  passed  in  1871  a  law  authorizing  the  President 
to  prescribe  regulations  for  admission  to  the  civil  service 
and  provide  methods  for  ascertaining  the  fitness  of 
candidates  —  a  law  which  promised  well  while  the  dis 
tinguished  champion  of  reform,  George  William  Curtis, 
was  head  of  the  board  in  charge  of  its  administration. 
Congress,  however,  had  accepted  the  reform  reluctantly 
and  refused  to  give  it  adequate  financial  support.  After 
two  years'  experience  with  the  law,  Curtis  resigned,  and 
within  a  short  time  the  whole  scheme  fell  to  the  ground. 

The  reformers,  however,  did  not  give  up  hope,  for 
they  were  sufficiently  strong  to  compel  the  respect  of 
the  Democrats,  and  the  latter,  by  their  insistence  on  a 
reform  that  cost  them  nothing,  forced  the  Republicans 


FEDERAL  LEGISLATION,   1877-1896          131 

to  give  the  merit  system  some  prominence  in  their  cam 
paign  promises.  But  practical  politicians  in  both 
parties  had  small  esteem  for  a  plan  that  would  take 
away  the  incentive  to  work  for  victory  on  the  part  of 
their  followers.  It  was  scornfully  called  "  snivel  serv 
ice"  and  " goody-goody  reform";  and  the  old  prac 
tices  of  distributing  offices  to  henchmen  and  raising 
campaign  funds  by  heavy  assessments  on  office-holders 
were  continued. 

Never  was  the  spoils  system  more  odious  than  when 
the  assassination  of  Garfield  by  a  disappointed  office 
hunter  startled  the  country  from  its  apathy.  Within 
a  year,  a  Senate  committee  had  reported  favorably  on 
a  civil  service  reform  bill.  It  declared  that  the  Presi 
dent  had  to  wear  his  life  out  giving  audiences  to  throngs 
of  beggars  who  besieged  the  executive  mansion,  and 
that  the  spectacle  of  the  chief  magistrate  of  the  nation 
dispensing  patronage  to  "a  hungry,  clamorous,  crowd 
ing,  and  jostling  multitude"  was  humiliating  to  the 
patriotic  citizen.  And  with  the  Congressman  the  sys 
tem  "is  ever  present.  When  he  awakes  in  the  morning 
it  is  at  his  door,  and  when  he  retires  at  night  it  haunts 
his  chamber.  It  goes  before  him,  it  follows  after  him, 
and  it  meets  him  on  the  way."  The  only  relief,  con 
cluded  the  report,  was  to  be  found  in  a  thoroughgoing 
merit  system  of  appointing  civil  servants. 

At  length  in  1883  Congress  passed  the  civil  service 
act  authorizing,  but  not  commanding,  the  President  to 
appoint  a  commission  and  extend  the  merit  system  to 
certain  Federal  offices.  The  commission  was  to  be 
composed  of  three  members,  not  more  than  two  of  the 


132      CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

same  party,  appointed  by  the  President  and  Senate, 
and  was  charged  with  the  duty  of  aiding  the  President, 
at  his  request,  in  preparing  suitable  rules  for  competi 
tive  examinations  designed  to  test  the  fitness  of  appli 
cants  for  offices  in  the  public  service,  already  classified 
or  to  be  classified  by  executive  order  or  by  further  leg 
islation.  The  act  itself  brought  a  few  offices  under  the 
merit  system,  but  it  left  the  extension  of  the  principle 
largely  to  the  discretion  of  the  President.  When  the 
law  went  into  force,  it  applied  only  to  about  14,000 
positions,  but  it  was  steadily  extended,  particularly 
by  retiring  Presidents  anxious  to  secure  the  jobs  already 
held  by  their  partisans  or  to  improve  the  efficiency  of 
the  service.  Neither  Cleveland  nor  Harrison  enforced 
the  law  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  reformers,  for  the 
pressure  of  the  office  seekers,  particularly  under  Cleve 
land's  first  administration,  was  almost  irresistible. 

Railway  and  Trust  Regulation 

In  the  beginning  of  the  railway  era  in  the  United 
States,  Congress  made  no  attempt  to  devise  a  far-sighted 
plan  of  public  control,  but  negligently  devoted  its  at 
tention  to  granting  generous  favors  to  railways.  It 
was  not  until  the  stock- watering,  high-financing,  dis 
criminations  and  rebates  had  disgraced  the  country 
that  Congress  was  moved  to  act.  It  is  true  that  Presi 
dent  Grant  in  his  message  of  1872  recommended,  and  a 
Senate  committee  approved,  a  comprehensive  plan  for 
regulating  railways,  but  there  was  no  practical  out 
come.  The  railway  interests  were  too  strong  in  Con- 


FEDERAL  LEGISLATION,   1877-1896          133 

gress  to  permit  the  enactment  of  any  drastic  regu 
latory  laws.  But  at  length  the  Granger  movement, 
which  had  produced  during  the  seventies  so  much  rail 
way  regulation  in  the  States,1  appeared  in  Congress, 
and  stirred  by  a  long  report  by  a  Senate  committee 
enumerating  a  terrifying  list  of  abuses  against  shippers 
particularly,  Congress  passed,  in  1887,  the  first  important 
interstate  commerce  law. 

This  act  was  a  timid,  halting  measure,  and  the  Su 
preme  Court  almost  immediately  sheared  away  its  ef 
fectiveness  by  decisions  in  favor  of  the  railway  com 
panies.  The  law  created  a  commission  of  five  members 
empowered  to  investigate  the  operations  of  common 
carriers  and  order  those  who  violated  the  law  to  desist. 
The  act  itself  forbade  discriminations  in  rates,  pooling 
traffic,  and  the  charging  of  more  for  " short"  than 
"long  hauls"  over  the  same  line,  except  under  special 
circumstances.  In  spite  of  the  good  intentions  of  the 
commission,  the  law  was  practically  a  dead  letter. 
According  to  a.  careful  scholar,  Professor  Davis  R. 
Dewey,  "By  1890  the  practice  of  cut  rates  to  favored 
shippers  and  cities  was  all  but  universal  at  the  West; 
passes  were  generally  issued ;  rebates  were  charged  up 
to  maintenance  of  way  account;  special  privileges  of 
yardage,  loading,  and  cartage  were  granted ;  freight  was 
underbilled  or  carried  under  a  wrong  classification  and 
secret  notification  of  intended  reduction  of  rates  was 
made  to  favored  shippers.  .  .  .  The  ingenuity  of 
officials  in  breaking  the  spirit  of  the  law  knew  no  limit, 
and  is  a  discouraging  commentary  on  the  dishonesty 

1  See  above,  p.      7. 


134     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

which  had  penetrated  into  the  heart  of  business  enter 
prise."  1 

The  critics  of  railway  policy  who  were  able  to  force 
the  passage  of  the  interstate  commerce  act  usually 
coupled  the  denunciation  of  the  industrial  monopolies 
with  their  attacks  on  common  carriers ;  and,  three  years 
after  the  establishment  of  the  interstate  commerce 
commission,  Congress,  feeling  that  some  kind  of  action 
was  demanded  by  the  political  situation,  passed  the 
Sherman  an ti- trust  law  of  1890.  There  was  no  con 
sensus  of  opinion  among  the  political  leaders  as  to  the 
significance  of  the  trust.  Elaine  declared  that  "  trusts 
were  largely  a  private  affair  with  which  neither  the 
President  nor  any  private  citizen  had  any  particular 
right  to  interfere."  Speaker  Reed  dismissed  the  sub 
ject  by  announcing  that  he  had  heard  "more  idiotic 
raving,  more  pestiferous  rant,  on  that  subject  than  on 
all  others  put  together."  Judge  Cooley,  on  seeing  "the 
utterly  heartless  manner  in  which  the  trusts  sometimes 
have  closed  many  factories  and  turned  men  willing  to 
be  industrious  into  the  streets  in  order  that  they  may 
increase  profits  already  reasonably  large,"  asked  whether 
the  trust  "as  we  see  it  is  not  a  public  enemy;  whether 
it  is  not  teaching  the  laborer  dangerous  lessons  ;  whether 
it  is  not  helping  to  breed  anarchy." 

In  the  midst  of  this  general  confusion  of  opinion  on  the 
trust,  it  is  not  surprising  that  Congress  in  the  Sherman 
law  of  1890  enunciated  no  clear  principles.  Apparently 
it  intended  to  restore  competition  by  declaring  illegal 
"every  contract,  combination  in  the  form  of  trust  or 

1  National  Problems,  p.  103. 


FEDERAL  LEGISLATION,   1877-1896          135 

otherwise,  or  conspiracy,  in  restraint  of  trade  or  com 
merce  among  the  several  states  or  with  foreign  nations." 
But  a  study  of  the  debates  over  the  law  fails  to  show 
any  consistent  opinion  as  to  what  combinations  were 
included  within  the  prohibition  or  as  to  the  exact  mean 
ing  of  " restraint  of  trade."  Of  course,  the  lawyers 
pointed  at  once  to  the  simplicity  of  the  old  common 
law  doctrine  that  conspiracies  in  restraint  of  trade  are 
illegal,  but  this  was  an  answer  in  verbiage  which  gave 
no  real  clew  to  concrete  forms  of  restraint  under  the 
complex  conditions  of  modern  life. 

The  vagueness  of  the  Sherman  an ti- trust  law  was  a 
subject  of  remark  during  its  passage  through  Congress. 
O.  H.  Platt,  in  the  Senate,  criticized  the  bill  as  attacking 
all  combinations,  no  matter  what  their  practices  or  forms. 
"I  believe,"  he  said,  "that  every  man  in  business  —  I 
do  not  care  whether  he  is  a  farmer,  a  laborer,  a  miner, 
a  sailor,  manufacturer,  a  merchant  —  has  a  right,  a 
legal  and  a  moral  right,  to  obtain  a  fair  profit  upon  his 
business  and  his  work ;  and  if  he  is  driven  by  fierce 
competition  to  a  spot  where  his  business  is  unremu- 
nerative,  I  believe  it  is  his  right  to  combine  for  the  pur 
pose  of  raising  prices  until  they  shall  be  fair  and  remu 
nerative.  This  bill  makes  no  distinction.  It  says  that 
every  combination  which  has  the  effect  in  any  way  to 
advance  prices  is  illegal  and  void.  .  .  .  The  theory  of 
this  bill  is  that  prices  must  never  be  advanced  by  two 
or  more  persons,  no  matter  how  ruinously  low  they 
may  be.  That  theory  I  denounce  as  utterly  unten 
able,  as  immoral." 

Senator  Platt  then  went  on  to  say  that  the  whole 


136     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

subject  had  not  been  adequately  considered  and  that 
the  bill  was  a  piece  of  politics,  not  of  statesmanship. 
"I  am  sorry,  Mr.  President,"  he  continued,  "that  we 
have  not  had  a  bill  which  had  been  carefully  prepared, 
which  had  been  thoughtfully  prepared,  which  had  been 
honestly  prepared,  to  meet  the  object  which  we  all  desire 
to  meet.  The  conduct  of  the  Senate  for  the  past  three 
days  —  and  I  make  no  personal  allusions  —  has  not 
been  in  the  line  of  the  honest  preparation  of  a  bill  to 
prohibit  and  punish  trusts.  It  has  been  in  the  line  of 
getting  some  bill  with  that  title  that  we  might  go  to 
the  country  with.  The  questions  of  whether  the  bill 
would  be  operative,  of  how  it  would  operate,  or  whether 
it  was  within  the  power  of  Congress  to  enact  it,  have  been 
whistled  down  the  wind  in  this  Senate  as  idle  talk,  and 
the  whole  effort  has  been  to  get  some  bill  headed :  'A 
Bill  to  Punish  Trusts/  with  which  to  go  to  the 
country." 

Senator  Hoar,  who  claimed  that  he  was  the  author  of 
the  Sherman  anti-trust  law,  says,  however,  that  the  act 
was  not  directed  against  all  combinations  in  business. 
"  It  was  expected,"  he  says,  "that  the  court  in  admin 
istering  that  law  would  confine  its  operations  to  cases 
which  are  contrary  to  the  policy  of  the  law,  treating 
the  words  'agreements  in  restraint  of  trade'  as  having 
a  technical  meaning,  such  as  they  are  supposed  to  have 
in  England.  The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
went  in  this  particular  farther  than  was  expected.1  .  .  . 
It  has  not  been  carried  to  its  full  extent  since,  and  I 
think  will  never  be  held  to  prohibit  those  lawful  and 

1  See  below,  p.  332. 


FEDERAL  LEGISLATION,   1877-1896          137 

harmless  combinations  which  have  been  permitted  in 
this  country  and  in  England  without  complaint,  like 
contracts  of  partnership,  which  are  usually  considered 
harmless." 

The  immediate  effects  of  the  Sherman  anti-trust  law 
were  wholly  negligible.  Seven  of  the  eight  judicial 
decisions  under  the  law  during  Harrison's  administra 
tion  were  against  the  government,  and  no  indictment  of 
offenders  against  the  law  went  so  far  as  a  trial.  During 
Cleveland's  second  term  the  law  was  a  dead  letter. 
Meanwhile  trusts  and  combinations  continued  to  mul 
tiply. 

.    The  Income  Tax  Law  of  1894 

In  the  debates  over  tariff  reduction,  silver,  and  paper 
money,  evidences  of  group  and  class  conflicts  were  al 
most  constantly  apparent,  but  it  was  not  until  the  enact 
ment  of  the  income  tax  provision  of  1894  that  political 
leaders  of  national  standing  frankly  avowed  a  class 
purpose  —  the  shifting  of  a  portion  of  the  burden  of 
national  taxes  from  the  commodities  consumed  by  the 
poor  to  the  incomes  of  the  rich. 

The  movement  for  an  income  tax  found  its  support 
especially  among  the  farmers  of  the  West  and  South  and 
the  working  classes  of  the  great  cities.  The  demand 
for  it  had  been  appearing  for  some  time  in  the  platforms 
of  the  agrarian  and  labor  parties.  The  National  or 
Greenback  party,  in  its  platform  of  1884,  demanded 
"a  graduated  income  tax"  and  "a  wise  revision  of  the 
tariff  laws  with  a  view  to  raising  revenues  from  luxury 


138     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

rather  than  necessity."  The  Anti-monopoly  party, 
in  the  same  year,  demanded,  "a  graduated  income  tax 
and  a  tariff,  which  is  a  tax  upon  the  people,  that  shall 
be  so  levied  as  to  bear  as  lightly  as  possible  upon  nec 
essaries.  We  denounce  the  present  tariff  as  being  largely 
in  the  interest  of  monopolies  and  demand  that  it  be 
speedily  and  radically  reformed  in  the  interest  of  labor 
instead  of  capital."  The  Union  Labor  convention  at 
Cincinnati  in  1888  declared  in  its  platform  :  "  A  graduated 
income  tax  is  the  most  equitable  system  of  taxation, 
placing  the  burden  of  government  upon  those  who  can 
best  afford  to  pay,  instead  of  laying  it  upon  the  farmers 
and  producers  and  exempting  millionaire  bondholders 
and  corporations." 

In  the  campaign  of  1892,  the  demand  for  an  income 
tax  was  made  by  the  Populist  party  and  by  the  Socialist 
Labor  party.  The  former  frankly  declared  war  on  the 
rich,  proclaiming  in  its  platform  that,  "The  fruits  of  the 
toil  of  millions  are  boldly  stolen  to  build  up  colossal 
fortunes  for  a  few,  unprecedented  in  the  history  of  man 
kind  ;  and  the  possessors  of  these,  in  turn,  despise  the 
republic  and  endanger  liberty."  Among  the  remedies 
for  this  dire  condition  of  things  the  Populists  demanded 
"a  graduated  income  tax."  The  Democrats,  at  their 
convention  of  that  year,  denounced  the  McKinley  tariff 
law  "as  the  culminating  atrocity  of  class  legislation," 
and  declared  that  "The  Federal  government  has  no  con 
stitutional  power  to  impose  and  collect  tariff  duties 
except  for  the  purpose  of  revenue  only." 

When -it  was  discovered  in  the  ensuing  election  that 
the  Democratic  party,  with  its  low  tariff  pronunciamento 


FEDERAL  LEGISLATION,   1877-1896          139 

was  victorious,  and  that  the  Populists  with  their  radical 
platform  had  carried  four  western  states  and  polled 
more  than  a  million  votes,  shrewd  political  observers 
saw  that  some  revision  in  the  revenue  system  of  the 
Federal  government  was  imperative.  President  Cleve 
land,  in  his  message  of  December,  1893,  m  connection 
with  the  recommendation  for  a  revision  of  the  tariff, 
stated  that,  "  the  committee  .  .  .  have  wisely  embraced 
in  their  plans  a  few  additional  revenue  taxes,  including 
a  small  tax  upon  incomes  derived  from  certain  corporate 
investments."  It  is  not  clear  what  committee  the 
President  had  in  mind,  and  Senator  Hill  declared  that 
the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  had  not  agreed  "upon 
any  income  tax  or  other  internal  taxation"  ;  although  it 
had  undoubtedly  been  considering  the  subject  in  con 
nection  with  the  revision  of  the  tariff. 

When  the  tariff  bill  was  introduced  in  Congress,  on 
December  19,  1893,  ^  contained  no  provision  for  an 
income  tax,  and  it  was  not  until  January  29  that  an 
income  tax  amendment  to  the  Wilson  bill  was  introduced 
in  behalf  of  the  Committee.  In  defending  his  amend 
ment,  the  mover,  Mr.  McMillin,  declared  that  the  pur 
pose  of  the  tax  was  to  place  a  small  per  cent  of  the  enor 
mous  Federal  burden  "upon  the  accumulated  wealth 
of  the  country  instead  of  placing  all  upon  the  consump 
tion  of  the  people."  He  announced  that  they  did  not 
come  there  in  any  spirit  of  antagonism  to  wealth,  that 
they  did  not  intend  to  put  an  undue  embargo  upon 
wealth,  but  that  they  did  intend  to  make  accumulated 
wealth  pay  some  share  of  the  expenses  of  the  govern 
ment.  The  tariff,  in  his  opinion,  taxed  want,  not  wealth. 


i4o     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

He  was  impatient  with  the  hue  and  cry  that  was  raised, 
"when  it  is  proposed  to  shift  this  burden  from  those 
who  cannot  bear  it  to  those  who  can ;  to  divide  it  between 
consumption  and  wealth;  to  shift  it  from  the  laborer 
who  has  nothing  but  his  power  to  toil  and  sweat  to  the 
man  who  has  a  f  of  tune  made  or  inherited."  The  protec 
tive  tariff,  he  added,  had  made  colossal  fortunes  by  levy 
ing  tribute  upon  the  many  for  the  enrichment  of  the  few ; 
and  yet  the  advocates  of  an  income  tax  were  told  that 
this  accumulated  wealth  was  a  sacred  thing  which  should 
go  untaxed  forever.  In  announcing  this  determination 
to  tax  the  rich,  Mr.  McMillin  disclaimed  any  intention 
of  waging  a  class  war,  by  declaring  that  the  income  tax, 
in  his  opinion,  would  "  diminish  the  antipathy  that  now 
exists  between  the  classes,"  and  sweep  away  the  ground 
for  that  "  iconoclastic  complaint  which  finds  expression 
in  violence  and  threatens  the  very  foundations  upon 
which  our  whole  institution  rests." 

The  champions  of  property  against  this  proposal  to 
tax  incomes  in  order  to  relieve  the  burden  upon  con 
sumption  summoned  every  device  of  oratory  and  argu 
ment  to  their  aid.  They  ridiculed  and  denounced,  and 
endeavored  to  conjure  up  before  Congress  horrible 
visions  of  want,  anarchy,  socialism,  ruin,  and  destruc 
tion.  J.  H.  Walker,  of  Massachusetts,  declared  that, 
"The  income  tax  takes  from  the  wealth  of  the  thrifty 
and  the  enterprising  and  gives  to  the  shifty  and  the 
sluggard."  Adams,  of  Pennsylvania,  found  the  income 
tax  "utterly  distasteful  in  its  moral  and  political  aspects, 
a  piece  of  class  legislation,  a  tax  upon  the  thrifty,  and  a 
reward  to  dishonesty."  In  the  Senate,  where  there  is 


FEDERAL  LEGISLATION,   1877-1896          141 

supposed  to  be  more  sobriety,  the  execrations  heaped 
upon  the  income  tax  proposal  were  marked  by  even  more 
virulence.  Senator  Hill  declared  that,  "The  professors 
with  their  books,  the  socialists  with  their  schemes,  the 
anarchists  with  their  bombs,  are  instructing  the  people 
of  the  United  States  in  the  organization  of  society, 
the  doctrines  of  democracy,  and  the  principles  of  taxa 
tion.  No  wonder  if  their  preaching  can  find  ears  in 
the  White  House."  In  his  opinion,  also,  the  income  tax 
was  an  "insidious  and  deadly  assault  upon  state  rights, 
state  powers,  and  state  independence."  Senator  Sher 
man  particularly  objected  to  the  high  exemption,  de 
claring,  "In  a  republic  like  ours,  where  all  men  are 
equal,  this  attempt  to  array  the  rich  against  the  poor, 
or  the  poor  against  the  rich,  is  socialism,  communism, 
devilism." 

In  spite  of  this  vigorous  opposition,  the  House  passed 
the  provision  by  a  vote  of  204  to  140  and  the  Senate  by 
a  vote  of  39  to  34.  In  its  final  form  the  law  imposed  a 
tax  of  two  per  cent  on  all  incomes  above  $4000  —  an  ex 
emption  under  which  the  farmer  and  the  lower  middle 
class  escaped  almost  entirely.  Cleveland  did  not  like 
a  general  income  tax,  and  he  was  dissatisfied  with  the 
Wilson  tariff  bill  to  which  the  tax  measure  was  attached. 
He,  therefore,  allowed  it  to  go  into  effect  without  his 
signature. 

Labor  Legislation 

The  only  measures  directly  in  the  interests  of  labor 
generally  passed  during  this  period  were  the  Chinese 


142     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

exclusion  act,  the  law  creating  a  labor  bureau  at  Wash 
ington,  and  the  prohibition  of  the  importation  of  alien 
workingmen  under  contract.  Shortly  after  the  Civil 
War,  protests  were  heard  against  cheap  Chinese  labor, 
not  only  in  the  western  states,  but  also  in  the  East,  where 
manufacturers  were  beginning  to  employ  coolies  to 
break  strikes  and  crush  unions.  At  length,  early  in  1882, 
Congress  passed  a  measure  excluding  Chinese  laborers 
for  a  period  of  twenty  years,  the  Republicans  from  the 
eastern  districts  voting  generally  against  it.  President 
Arthur  vetoed  the  bill,  holding  in  particular  that  it  was 
a  violation  of  treaty  provisions  with  China,  and  sug 
gested  a  limitation  of  the  application  of  the  principle 
to  ten  years.  This  was  accepted  by  Congress,  and  the 
law  went  into  force  in  August  of  that  year.  More 
stringent  identification  methods  were  later  applied  to 
returning  Chinese,  and  in  1892,  the  application  of  the 
principle  of  exclusion  was  further  extended  for  a  term  of 
ten  years.  In  1884,  a  Federal  bureau  of  labor  statistics 
was  created  to  collect  information  upon  problems  of 
labor  and  capital.  In  1885,  Congress  passed  a  law  pro 
hibiting  the  importation  of  laborers  under  contract^ 
which  was  supplemented  by  later  legislation.1 

1  In  1887,  Congress  enacted  a  law  providing  for  counting  the  electoral 
vote  in  presidential  elections.  This  measure  grew  out  of  the  disputed 
election  of  1876. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE   GROWTH   OF  DISSENT 

IMPORTANT  as  was  the  legislation  described  in  the 
preceding  chapter,  there  were  sources  of  discontent 
which  it  could  not,  in  the  nature  of  things,  dry  up.  With 
the  exception  of  the  income  tax,  there  had  been  no  de 
cisive  effort  to  placate  the  poorer  sections  of  the  popu 
lation  by  distinct  class  legislation.  It  is  true,  the  alien 
contract  labor  law  and  the  Chinese  exclusion  act  were 
directed  particularly  to  the  working  class,  but  their 
effects  were  not  widely  felt. 

The  accumulation  of  vast  fortunes,  many  of  whi'i- 
were  gained  either  by  fraudulent  manipulations,  or 
shady  transactions  within  the  limits  of  the  law  but  con 
demned  by  elementary  morals,  and  the  massing  of 
millions  of  the  proletariat  in  the  great  industrial  cities 
were  bound  in  the  long  run  to  bring  forth  political  cleav 
ages  as  deep  as  the  corresponding  social  cleavage.  The 
domination  of  the  Federal  government  by  the  captains 
of  machinery  and  capital  was  destined  to  draw  out  a 
counter  movement  on  the  part  of  the  small  farmers,  the 
middle  class,  and  the  laborers.  Mutterings  of  this 
protest  were  heard  in  the  seventies;  it  broke  forth  in 
the  Populist  and  Socialist  movement  in  the  nineties ;  it 
was  voiced  in  the  Democratic  campaign  of  1896  ;  silenced 

143 


144      CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

awhile  by  a  wave  of  imperialism,  it  began  to  work  a 
transformation  in  all  parties  at  the  opening  of  the  new 
century. 

This  protest  found  its  political  expression  in  the  or 
ganization  of  " third"  or  minor  parties.  The  oldest 
and  most  persistent  of  all  these  groups  is  the  Prohibi 
tionist  party,  which  held  its  first  national  convention  at 
Columbus,  Ohio,  in  1872,  and  nominated  Mr.  Black,  of 
Pennsylvania,  as  its  candidate.  In  its  platform,  it  de 
clared  the  suppression  of  the  liquor  traffic  to  be  the 
leading  issue,  but  it  also  proposed  certain  currency 
reforms  and  the  regulation  of  transportation  companies 
and  monopolies. 

Although  their  popular  vote  in  1872  was  less  than  six 
thousand,  the  Prohibitionists  returned  to  their  issue 
at  each  succeeding  campaign  with  Spartan  firmness, 
T  ut  their  gains  were  painfully  slow.  They  reached 
9522  in  1876,  and  10,305  in  1880.  In  the  campaign  of 
1884,  when  many  Republicans  were  dissatisfied  with 
the  nomination  of  Elaine,  and  unwilling  to  follow  Curtis 
and  Schurz  into  the  Democratic  camp,  the  Prohibition 
vote  rose  to  150,369.  A  further  gain  of  nearly  one  hun 
dred  thousand  votes  in  the  next  election,  to  which  a 
slight  addition  was  made  in  1892,  encouraged  the  Pro 
hibitionists  to  hope  that  the  longed-for  " split"  had 
come,  and  they  frightened  the  Republican  politicians 
into  considering  concessions,  especially  in  the  states 
where  the  temperance  party  held  the  balance  of  power. 
In  fact,  in  their  platform  of  1892  the  Republicans  an 
nounced  in  a  non-committal  fashion  that  they  sym- 


THE   GROWTH  OF   DISSENT  145 

pathized  with  "all  wise  and  legitimate  efforts  to  lessen 
and  prevent  the  evils  of  intemperance  and  promote 
morality."  The  scare  was  unwarranted,  however,  for 
the  Prohibition  party  had  about  reached  its  high-water 
mark.  Being  founded  principally  on  one  moral  issue 
and  making  no  appeal  to  any  fundamental  economic 
divisions,  it  could  not  make  headway  against  the  more 
significant  social  issues,  and  its  strength  was  further 
reduced  by  the  growth  of  state  and  local  prohibition. 

Almost  immediately  after  the  Civil  War,  labor  entered 
politics  in  a  small  way  on  its  own  account.  In  1872,  a 
party  known  as  the  "Labor  Reformers"  held  a  national 
convention  at  Columbus  which  was  attended  by  delegates 
from  seventeen  states.  It  declared  in  favor  of  restrict 
ing  the  sale  of  public  lands  to  homesteaders,  Chinese 
exclusion,  an  eight-hour  day  in  government  employments, 
civil  service  reform,  one  term  for  each  President,  regu 
lation  of  railway  and  telegraph  rates,  and  the  subjection 
of  the  military  to  the  civil  authorities.  The  party  nom 
inated  Justice  Davis,  who  had  been  appointed  to  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  by  Lincoln  and  had 
shown  Populist  leanings  immediately  after  the  War; 
but  Mr.  Davis  declined  to  serve,  and  O'Connor  of  New 
York,  to  whom  the  place  was  then  tendered,  only  polled 
about  29,000  votes. 

This  early  labor  party  was  simply  a  party  of  mild 
protest.  It  originated  in  Massachusetts,  where  there 
had  been  a  number  of  serious  labor  disputes  and  a  certain 
shoe  manufacturer  had  imported  a  carload  of  Chinese 
to  operate  his  machinery.  Although  WTendell  Phillips, 


146     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

who  had  declared  the  emancipation  of  labor  to  be  the 
next  great  issue  after  the  emancipation  of  slaves,  was 
prominently  identified  with  it  and  stood  next  to  Justice 
Davis  on  the  first  poll  in  the  convention,  the  party  as  a 
whole  manifested  no  tendency  to  open  a  distinct  class 
struggle,  and  the  leading  planks  of  its  program  were 
shortly  accepted  by  both  of  the  old  parties. 

Standing  upon  such  a  temporary  platform,  and  un 
supported  by  any  general  philosophy  of  politics,  the 
labor  reform  party  inevitably  went  to  pieces.  Its  dis 
solution  was  facilitated  by  the  rise  of  an  agrarian  party, 
the  Greenbackers,  who,  in  their  platform  of  1880,  were 
more  specific  and  even  more  extensive  in  their  declaration 
of  labor's  rights  than  the  " Reformers"  themselves  had 
been.  It  was  not  until  1888  that  another  "labor"  group 
appeared,  but  since  that  date  there  has  been  one  or 
more  parties  making  a  distinct  appeal  to  the  working 
class.  In  that  year,  there  were  two  "labor"  factions,  the 
Union  Labor  party  and  the  United  Labor  party.  Both 
groups  came  out  for  the  public  ownership  of  the  means  of 
transportation  and  communication  and  a  code  of  en 
lightened  labor  legislation.  The  former  advocated  the 
limitation  of  land  ownership  and  the  latter  the  applica 
tion  of  the  single  tax.  Both  agreed  in  denouncing  the 
"Democratic  and  Republican  parties  as  hopelessly  and 
shamelessly  corrupt,  and,  by  reason  of  their  affiliation 
i/with  monopolies,  equally  unworthy  of  the  suffrages  of 
those  who  do  not  live  upon  public  plunder."  The  vote 
of  both  groups  in  the  ensuing  election  was  slightly  over 
150,000. 

The  labor  groups  which  had  broken  with  the  old 


THE   GROWTH   OF   DISSENT  147 

parties  took  a  more  definite  step  toward  socialism  in 
1892,  when  they  frankly  assumed  the  name  of  the  Social 
ist  Labor  party  *  and  put  forward  a  declaration  in  favor 
of  the  public  ownership  of  utilities  and  a  general  system 
of  protective  labor  legislation.  Although  the  socialism 
of  Karl  Marx  had  by  this  time  won  a  wide  influence 
among  the  working  classes  of  Europe,  there  are  few  if  any 
traces  of  it  in  the  Socialist  Labor  platform  of  1892. 
That  platform  says  nothing  about  the  inevitable  con 
test  between  labor  and  capitalism,  or  about  the  complete 
public  ownership  of  all  the  means  of  transportation  and 
production.  On  the  contrary,  it  confines  its  statements 
to  concrete  propositions,  including  the  political  reforms 
of  the  initiative,  referendum,  and  recall,  all  of  which  have 
since  been  advocated  by  leaders  in  the  old  parties.  The 
small  vote  received  in  1892  by  the  socialistic  candidate, 
21,532,  is  no  evidence  of  the  strength  of  the  labor  protest, 
for  the  Populist  party  in  that  year  included  in  its  pro 
gram  substantially  the  same  principles  and  made  a 
distinct  appeal  to  the  working  class,  as  well  as  to  the 
farmers. 

Indeed,  the  discontent  of  the  two  decades  from  1876 
to  1896  was  confined  principally  to  the  small  farmers,  who 
waged,  in  fact,  a  class  war  upon  capitalists  and  financiers, 
although  they  nowhere  formulated  it  into  a  philosophy. 
They  chose  to  rely  upon  the  inflation  of  the  currency  as 
their  chief  weapon  of  offense.  A  precursor  to  the  agra 
rian  movement  in  politics  is  to  be  found  in  the  "  Granger  • 
Movement,"  which  began  with  the  formation  of  an 

1  See  below,  p.  296. 


148      CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

association  known  as  the  " Patrons  of  Husbandry"  in 
1867.  This  society,  which  organize^  local  lodges  on  a 
secret  basis  and  admitted  both  men  and  women,  was 
originally  designed  to  promote  agricultural  interests 
in  a  general  and  social  way,  and  its  political  implications 
were  not  at  first  apparent.  It  naturally  appealed, 
however,  to  the  most  active  and  socially  minded  farmers, 
and  its  leaders  soon  became  involved  in  politics. 

The  sources  of  agrarian  discontent  were  obvious. 
During  the  War,  prices  had  been  high  and  thousands 
of  farm  "hands"  and  mechanics  had  become  land 
owners,  thanks  to  the  homestead  laws  enacted  by  the 
Republican  party;  but  they  had  little  capital  to  start 
with,  and  their  property  was  heavily  mortgaged.  When 
the  inflated  War  prices  collapsed,  they  found  themselves 
compelled  to  pay  interest  at  the  old  rate,  and  they  fig 
ured  it  out  that  capitalists  and  bondholders  were  the 
chief  beneficiaries  of  the  Federal  financial  legislation. 
In  spite  of  all  that  had  been  paid  on  the  national  and 
private  debts,  the  amount  still  due,  they  reckoned, 
measured  in  the  products  of  toil,  wheat  and  corn,  was 
greater  than  ever.  They,  therefore,  hit  on  the  conclu 
sion  that  the  chief  source  of  trouble  was  in  the  contrac 
tion  of  the  currency  which  reduced  the  money  value  of 
their  products.  The  remedy  obviously  was  inflation 
in  some  form.1 

While  the  currency  thus  became  the  chief  agrarian 
issue,  the  farmers  attributed  a  part  of  their  troubles  to 
the  railway  companies  whose  heavily  " watered"  capital 
made  high  freight  rates  necessary,  and  whose  discrimina- 

1  See  above,  p.  121. 


THE   GROWTH   OF  DISSENT  149 

tions  in  charges  fell  as  heavy  burdens  on  shippers  out 
side  of  the  zones  of  competition.  The  agrarians,  there 
fore,  resorted  to  railway  legislation  in  their  respective 
states  —  the  regulation  of  rates  and  charges  for  transpor 
tation  and  the  conditions  under  which  grain  should  be 
warehoused  and  handled.  In  Illinois,  Iowa,  Wisconsin, 
and  other  states,  the  law  makers  yielded  to  the  pres 
sure  of  the  farmers  for  this  kind  of  legislative  relief,  and 
based  their  legal  contentions  on  the  ground  that  the  rail 
ways  "partook  of  the  nature  of  public  highways.  "  The 
Grangers  were  strengthened  in  their  convictions  by  the 
violence  of  the  opposition  offered  on  the  part  of  the 
railways  to  the  establishment  of  rates  and  charges  by 
public  authority,  and  by  their  constant  appeals  to  the 
courts  for  relief.1 

Of  course,  the  fixing  of  flat  rates  without  any  inquiry 
into  the  cost  of  specific  services  was  open  to  grave  objec 
tions  ;  but  the  opposition  of  the  companies  was  gener 
ally  based  on  the  contention  that  they  had  a  right  to 
run  their  business  in  their  own  way.  The  spirit  of  this 
opposition  is  reflected  in  an  editorial  published  in  the 
Nation,  of  New  York,  in  January,  1875  :  "We  main 
tain  that  the  principle  of  such  legislation  is  either  con 
fiscation,  or,  if  another  phrase  be  more  agreeable,  the 
change  of  railroads  from  pieces  of  private  property, 
owned  and  managed  for  the  benefit  of  those  who  have 
invested  their  money  in  them,  into  eleemosynary  or 
charitable  corporations,  managed  for  the  benefit  of  a 
particular  class  of  applicants  for  outdoor  relief  —  the 
farmers.  If,  in  the  era  of  progress  to  which  the  farmers' 

1  See  above,  pp.  67  ff. 


0  CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

movement  proposes  to  introduce  us,  we  are  going  back 
to  a  condition  of  society  in  which  the  only  sort  of  prop 
erty  which  we  can  call  our  own  is  that  which  we  can 
make  our  own  by  physical  possession,  it  is  certainly 
important  to  every  one  to  know  it,  and  the  only  body 
which  can  really  tell  us  is  the  Supreme  Court  at  Wash 
ington." 

Not  content  with  their  achievements  in  the  state 
legislatures,  the  agrarians  entered  national  politics  in 
1876  in  the  form  of  the  Independent  National  or  Green 
back  party,  designed  to '"  stop  the  present  suicidal  and 
destructive  policy  of  contraction."  They  declared 
their  belief  that  "a  United  States  note,  issued  directly 
by  the  government  and  convertible  on  demand  into 
United  States  obligations,  bearing  a  rate  of  interest  not 
exceeding  one  cent  a  day  on  each  one  hundred  dollars 
and  exchangeable  for  United  States  notes  at  par,  will 
afford  the  best  circulating  medium  ever  devised."  In 
spite  of  the  small  vote  polled  by  their  standard  bearer, 
Peter  Cooper,  of  New  York,  they  put  forward  a  candi 
date  in  the  next  campaign 1  and  made  a  third  attempt 
in  1884,  growing  more  and  more  radical  in  tone.  In 
their  last  year,  they  declared:  " Never  in  our  history 
have  the  banks,  the  land-grant  railroads,  and  other 
monopolies  been  more  insolent  in  their  demands  for 
further  privileges  —  still  more  class  legislation.  In 
this  emergency  the  dominant  parties  are  arrayed  against 
the  people  and  are  the  abject  tools  of  the  corporate 
monopolies."  The  Greenbackers  demanded,  in  addi- 

1  They  polled  about  a  million  votes  in  the  congressional  elections  of 
1878. 


THE   GROWTH  OF   DISSENT  151 

tion  to  currency  reform,  the  regulation  of  interstate 
commerce,  a  graduated  income  tax,  labor  legislation, 
prohibition  of  importation  of  contract  laborers,  and  the 
reduction  of  the  terms  of  United  States  Senators.  Al 
though  their  candidate,  B.  F.  Butler,  polled  175,000 
votes  in  1884,  the  Greenbackers  gave  up  the  contest, 
and  in  1888  yielded  their  place  to  the  Union  Labor  party. 

The  agrarian  interest  was,  however,  still  the  chief 
source  of  conscious  discontent,  and  the  disappearance 
of  the  Greenbackers  was  shortly  followed  by  the  estab 
lishment  of  two  societies,  the  National  Farmers' Alliance 
and  Industrial  Union  and  the  National  Farmers'  Alli 
ance,  the  former  strong  in  the  South  and  West,  and  the 
latter  in  the  North.  In  1890,  these  orders  claimed 
over  three  million  members,  and  in  several  of  the 
southern  states  they  had  dominated  or  split  the 
Democratic  party.  The  Northern  Alliance  was  like 
wise  busy  with  politics,  and  in  Kansas  and  Nebraska, 
by  independence  or  fusion,  carried  a  large  number  of 
legislative  districts. 

Although  professing  to  be  non-political  in  the  begin 
ning,  the  leaders  of  these  alliances  called  a  national 
convention  at  Omaha  in  1892  and  put  forth  the  most 
radical  platform  that  had  yet  appeared  in  American 
politics.  It  declared  that  the  newspapers  were  subsi 
dized,  corruption  dominated  the  ballot  box,  homes  were 
covered  with  mortgages,  labor  was  impoverished  and 
tyrannized  over  by  a  hireling  standing  army,  and  the 
nation  stood  on  the  verge  of  ruin.  "The  fruits  of  the 
toils  of  millions,"  runs  the  platform,  "are  boldly  stolen 
to  build  up  colossal  fortunes  for  a  few,  unprecedented 


152      CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

in  the  history  of  mankind ;  and  the  possessors  of  these  in 
turn  despise  the  republic  and  endanger  liberty.  From 
the  same  prolific  womb  of  governmental  injustice  we 
breed  two  classes  of  tramps  and  millionaires."  Their 
demands  included  the  free  coinage  of  silver,  a  graduated 
income  tax,  postal-savings  banks,  government  owner 
ship  of  railways,  telegraph  and  telephones ;  they  de 
clared  their  sympathy  with  organized  labor  in  its  war 
fare  for  better  conditions  and  its  struggle  against  "Pin- 
kerton  hirelings'7 ;  and  they  commended  the  initiative, 
referendum,  and  popular  election  of  United  States 
Senators.  On  this  program,  the  Populists  polled  over 
a  million  votes  and  captured  twenty-two  presidential 
electors.  Evidently  the  indifference  of  the  old  parties  to 
such  issues  could  not  remain  undisturbed  much  longer. 

Fuel  was  added  to  the  discontent  in  the  spring  of 
1895,  when  the  Supreme  Court  declared  null  and  void 
the  income  tax  law  of  the  previous  year.1  The  oppo 
nents  of  the  tax,  having  lost  in  the  Congress,  made  their 
last  stand  in  the  highest  Federal  tribunal,  and  marshaled 
on  their  side  an  array  of  legal  talent  seldom  seen  in  an 
action  at  law,  including  Senator  Edmunds,  Mr.  Joseph 
H.  Choate,  and  other  attorneys  prominently  identified 
with  railway  and  corporation  litigation.  Nox  effort 
was  spared  in  bringing  pressure  to  bear  on  the  Court, 
and  no  arguments,  legal,  political,  and  social,  were  neg 
lected  in  the  attempt  to  impress  upon  the  Court  the 
importance  of  stopping  Populism  by  a  judicial  pronun- 
ciamento.  Conservative  New  York  papers,  like  the 

1  See  above,  p.  137. 


THE   GROWTH   OF   DISSENT  153 

Herald,  boldly  prophesied  in  the  summer  of  1894  that 
"the  income  tax  will  be  blotted  from  the  statute  books 
before  the  people  are  cursed  with  its  inquisitorial  en 
forcement." 

No  easy  victory  lay  before  the  opponents  of  the  in 
come  tax,  for  the  law  seemed  to  be  against  them.  In 
1870,  the  Supreme  Court  had  upheld  the  Civil  War 
income  tax  without  a  dissenting  voice,  and  had  distinctly 
said :  "Our  conclusions  are  that  direct  taxes,  within  the 
meaning  of  the  Constitution,  are  only  capitation  taxes 
as  expressed  in  that  instrument  and  taxes  on  real  estate, 
and  that  the  tax  of  which  the  plaintiff  in  error  complains 
[the  income  tax]  is  within  the  category  of  an  excise  or 
duty."  Of  course,  the  terms  of  the  new  law  were  not 
identical  with  those  of  the  Civil  War  measure,  and  the 
Supreme  Court  had  been  known  to  reverse  itself. 

The  attorneys  against  the  tax  left  no  stone  unturned. 
As  Professor  Seligman  remarks,  "Some  of  the  impor 
tant  financial  interests  now  engaged  a  notable  array  of 
eminent  counsel  to  essay  the  arduous  task  of  persuading 
the  Supreme  Court  that  it  might  declare  the  income 
tax  a  direct  tax  without  reversing  its  previous  decisions. 
The  effort  was  made  with  the  most  astonishing  degree 
of  ability  and  ingenuity,  and  the  briefs  and  arguments 
of  the  opposing  counsel  fill  several  large  volumes.  .  .  . 
The  counsel's  arguments  abound  in  historical  errors 
and  economic  inaccuracies.  .  .  .  Errors  and  misstate- 
ments  which  might  be  multiplied  pale  into  insignificance 
compared  with  the  misinterpretation  put  upon  the 
origin  and  purpose  of  the  direct-tax  clause  —  a  misin 
terpretation  which  like  most  of  the  preceding  mistakes 


154     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

was  bodily  adopted  by  the  majority  of  the  Court,  who 
evidently  found  no  time  for  an  independent  investiga 
tion  of  the  subject."  Having  exhausted  their  ingenuity 
in  the  matter  of  technicalities  and  imposing  historical 
and  economic  and  legal  arguments,  the  counsel  appealed 
to  every  class  fear  and  prejudice  that  might  be  enter 
tained  by  the  Court. 

The  introduction  of  the  passions  of  a  social  conflict 
into  what  purported  to  be  a  legal  contest  was  intrusted 
to  Mr.  Choate.  He  threatened  the  Court  with  the 
declaration  that  if  it  approved  the  law,  and  "the  com 
munistic  march"  went  on,  a  still  higher  exemption  of 
$20,000  might  be  made  and  a  rate  of  20  per  cent  imposed 
—  a  highly  important  statement,  but  one  that  had  no 
connection  with  the  question  whether  an  income  tax 
was  a  direct  tax.  " There  is  protection  now  or  never," 
he  exclaimed.  The  very  keystone  of  civilization,  he 
continued,  was  the  preservation  of  the  rights  of  private 
property,  and  this  fundamental  principle  was  scattered 
to  the  winds  by  the  champions  of  the  tax.  Mr.  Choate 
concluded  by  warning  the  Court  not  to  pay  any  atten 
tion  to  the  popular  passions  enlisted  on  the  side  of  the 
law,  and  urged  it  not  to  hesitate  in  declaring  the  law 
unconstitutional,  "no  matter  what  the  threatened  con 
sequences  of  popular  or  populistic  wrath  may  be." 

The  Court  was  evidently  moved  by  the  declamation 
of  Mr.  Choate,  for  Justice  Field,  in  his  opinion,  replied 
in  kind.  "The  present  assault  upon  capital,"  he  said, 
"is  but  the  beginning.  It  will  be  but  the  stepping 
stone  to  others  larger  and  more  sweeping  till  our  political 
conditions  will  become  a  war  of  the  poor  against  the 


THE   GROWTH   OF  DISSENT  155 

rich;  a  war  growing  in  intensity  and  bitterness."  If 
such  a  law  were  upheld,  he  gravely  announced,  boards  of 
walking  delegates  would  be  fixing  tax  rates  in  the  near 
future.  Mr.  Justice  Harlan,  in  his  dissenting  opinion, 
however,  replied  in  behalf  of  the  populace  by  saying : 
"The  practical  effect  of  the  decision  to-day  is  to  give 
certain  kinds  of  property  a  position  of  favoritism  and 
advantage  inconsistent  with  the  fundamental  principles 
of  our  social  organization,  and  to  invest  them  with  power 
and  influence  that  may  be  perilous  to  that  portion  of 
the  American  people  upon  whom  rests  the  larger  part 
of  the  burdens  of  government  and  who  ought  not  to  be 
subjected  to  the  dominion  of  aggregated  wealth  any 
more  than  the  property  of  the  country  should  be  at  the 
mercy  of  the  lawless." 

At  the  best,  the  nullification  of  the  income  tax  law 
was  not  an  easy  task.  There  were  eight  justices  on  the 
bench  when  the  decision  of  the  Court  was  handed 
down  on  April  8,  1895.  All  of  them  agreed  that  the  law 
was  unconstitutional  in  so  far  as  it  laid  a  tax  on  revenues 
derived  from  state  and  municipal  bonds;  five  of  them 
agreed  that  a  tax  on  rent  or  income  from  land  was  a 
direct  tax  and  hence  unconstitutional  unless  apportioned 
among  the  states  on  the  basis  of  population  —  which 
was  obviously  impolitic ;  and  the  Court  stood  four  to 
four  on  the  important  point  as  to  the  constitutionality 
of  taxes  on  incomes  derived  from  mortgages,  interest, 
and  personal  property  generally.  The  decision  of  the 
Court  was  thus  inconclusive  on  the  only  point  that 
interested  capitalists  particularly,  and  it  was  so  regarded 
by  the  Eastern  press. 


156     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

On  April  9,  the  day  following  the  decision  of  the 
Court,  the  New  York  Sun  declared:  " Twice  in  great 
national  crises  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
has  failed  to  meet  the  expectations  of  the  people  or  to 
justify  its  existence  as  the  ultimate  tribunal  of  right  and 
law.  In  both  instances  the  potent  consideration  has 
been  neither  right  nor  law,  but  the  supposed  demands 
of  political  expediency.  .  .  .  Yesterday  the  failure  of 
the  Supreme  Court  to  decide  the  main  question  of  con 
stitutionality  submitted  to  it  was  brought  about  by 
political  considerations.  It  was  not  Democracy  against 
Republicanism  as  before,  but  Populism  and  Clevelandism 
against  Democracy,  and  the  vote  was  four  to  four." 
The  Tribune,  on  April  10,  declared  that  "the  Court 
reached  a  finding  which  is  as  near  an  abdication  of  its 
power  to  interpret  the  Constitution  and  a  confession  of 
its  unfitness  for  that  duty  as  anything  well  can  be." 

In  view  of  the  unsatisfactory  condition  created  by 
its  decision,  the  Court  consented  to  a  rehearing,  and, 
on  May  20,  1895,  added  its  opinion  that  the  tax  on 
incomes  from  personal  property  was  also  a  direct  tax, 
thus  bringing  the  whole  law  to  the  ground  by  a  vote  of 
five  to  four.  Justice  Jackson,  who  was  ill  when  the 
first  decision  was  made,  had  in  the  meantime  returned 
to  the  bench,  and  he  was  strongly  in  favor  of  declaring 
the  law  constitutional.  Had  the  Court  stood  as  before, 
the  personal  property  income  tax  would  have  been  up 
held,  but  one  Justice,  who  had  sustained  this  particu 
lar  provision  in  the  first  case,  was  induced  to  change  his 
views  and  vote  against  it  on  the  final  count.  Thus  by  a 
narrow  vote  of  five  to  four,  brought  about  by  a  Justice 


THE   GROWTH   OF   DISSENT  157 

who  changed  his  mind  within  the  period  of  a  few  days, 
all  of  the  essential  parts  of  the  income  tax  law  were 
declared  null  and  void. 

The  temper  of  the  country  over  the  affair  was  well 
manifested  in  the  press  comments  on  the  last  decision. 
The  New  York  Sun,  which  had  roundly  denounced  the 
Court  in  the  first  instance,  now  joined  in  a  chorus  of 
praise :  "In  a  hundred  years  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  has  not  rendered  a  decision  more  impor 
tant  in  its  immediate  effect  or  reaching  further  in  its 
consequences  than  that  which  the  Sun  records  this 
morning.  There  is  life  left  in  the  institutions  which 
the  founders  of  this  republic  devised  and  constructed. 
There  is  a  safe  future  for  the  national  system  under 
which  we  were  all  born  and  have  lived  and  prospered 
according  to  individual  capacity.  The  wave  of  social 
istic  revolution  has  gone  far,  but  it  breaks  at  the  foot  of 
the  ultimate  bulwark  set  up  for  protection  of  our  liber 
ties.  Five  to  four,  the  court  stands  like  a  rock." 

The  Tribune,  on  May  24,  added:  "The  more  the 
people  study  the  influences  behind  this  attempt  to  bring 
about  a  communistic  revolution  in  modes  of  taxation, 
the  more  clearly  they  will  realize  that  it  was  an  essential 
part  of  the  distinctly  un-American  and  unpatriotic 
attempt  to  destroy  the  American  policy  of  defense  for 
home  industries,  in  the  interest  of  foreigners.  .  .  . 
Thanks  to  the  Court,  our  government  is  not  to  be  dragged 
into  communistic  warfare  against  rights  of  property 
and  the  rewards  of  industry  while  the  Constitution  of 
its  founders  remains  a  bulwark  of  the  rights  of  states 
and  of  individual  citizens." 


158     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

The  New  York  World,  on  the  other  hand,  which  had 
so  stoutly  championed  the  tax  in  behalf  of  "the  masses," 
represented  the  decision  of  the  Court  as  "the  triumph  of 
selfishness  over  patriotism.  It  is  another  victory  of 
greed  over  need.  Great  and  rich  corporations,  by  hiring 
the  ablest  lawyers  in  the  land  and  fighting  against  a 
petty  tax  upon  superfluity  as  other  men  have  fought  for 
their  liberties  and  their  lives,  have  secured  the  exemption 
of  wealth  from  paying  its  just  share  towards  the  support 
of  the  government  that  protects  it.  ...  The  people 
at  large  will  bow  to  this  decision  as  they  habitually  do 
to  all  the  decrees  of  their  highest  courts.  But  they  will 
not  accept  law  as  justice.  No  dictum  or  decision  of 
any  wrong  can  make  wrong  right,  and  it  is  not  right 
that  the  entire  cost  of  the  Federal  government  shall 
rest  upon  consumption.  .  .  .  Equity  demands  that 
citizens  shall  contribute  to  the  support  of  the  govern 
ment  with  some  regard  to  benefits  received  and  ability 
to  pay." 

Although  the  conservative  elements  saw  in  the  annul 
ment  of  the  income  tax  nothing  but  a  wise  and  timely 
exercise  of  judicial  authority  in  defense  of  the  Constitu 
tion  and  sound  policy,  the  radical  elements  regarded  it 
as  an  evidence  "that  the  judicial  branch  of  the  govern 
ment  was  under  the  control  of  the  same  interests  that 
had  mutilated  the  Wilson  tariff  bill  in  the  Senate."  The 
local  Federal  courts  augmented  this  popular  feeling 
by  frequently  issuing  injunctions  ordering  workingmen 
in  time  of  strikes  not  to  interfere  with  their  employers' 
business,  thus  crippling  them  in  the  coercion  of  em- 


THE   GROWTH   OF  DISSENT  159 

plovers,  by  imprisoning  without  jury  trial  those  who 
disobeyed  judicial  orders. 

Although  the  injunction  was  an  ancient  legal  device, 
it  was  not  until  after  the  Civil  War  that  it  was  devel 
oped  into  a  powerful  instrument  in  industrial  disputes ; 
and  it  became  particularly  effective  in  the  hands  of 
Federal  judges.  They  were  not  popularly  elected,  but 
were  appointed  by  the  President  and  the  Senate  (where 
corporate  influences  were  ably  represented).  Under  the 
provisions  of  the  law  giving  Federal  courts  jurisdiction 
in  cases  involving  citizens  of  different  states,  they  were 
called  upon  to  intervene  with  increasing  frequency  in 
industrial  disputes,  for  railway  and  other  corporations 
usually  did  business  in  several  states,  and  they  could 
generally  invoke  Federal  protection  by  showing  that  they 
were  "  non-residents  "  of  the  particular  states  in  which 
strikes  were  being  waged.  Moreover,  strikers  who  inter 
fered  with  interstate  commerce  were  likely  to  collide 
with  Federal  authorities  whose  aid  was  invited  by  the 
employers  affected.  Whenever  a  corporation  was  in 
bankruptcy,  control  over  its  business  fell  into  the  hands 
of  the  Federal  courts. 

The  effectiveness  of  Federal  judicial  intervention  in 
labor  troubles  became  apparent  in  the  first  great  strikes 
of  the  seventies,  when  the  state  authorities  proved 
unable  to  restrain  rioting  and  disorder  by  the  use  of  the 
local  militia.  During  the  railway  war  of  1877  a  Federal 
judge  in  southern  Illinois  ordered  the  workingmen  not 
to  interfere  with  a  railway  for  which  he  had  appointed 
a  receiver,  and  he  then  employed  Federal  troops  under 
the  United  States  marshal  to  execute  his  mandate. 


160     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

About  the  same  time  other  Federal  judges  intervened 
effectively  in  industrial  disputes  by  the  liberal  use  of 
the  injunction,  and  the  president  of  the  Pennsylvania 
Railroad  Company  pointed  out  in  an  article  published 
in  the  North  American  Review  for  September,  1877, 
how  much  more  potent  Federal  authority  was  in  such 
trying  crises  to  give  railway  corporations  efficient  pro 
tection. 

From  that  time  forward  the  injunction  was  steadily 
employed  by  Federal  and  state  courts,  but  it  was  not 
until  the  great  railway  strike  of  1894  in  Chicago  that  it 
was  brought  prominently  before  the  country  as  a  dis 
tinct  political  issue.  In  that  strike,  the  Democratic 
governor,  Mr.  Altgeld,  believing  that  the  employers 
had  fomented  disorder  for  the  purpose  of  invoking  Fed 
eral  intervention  (as  was  afterward  pretty  conclusively 
shown),  refused  to  employ  the  state  militia  speedily 
and  effectively,  contending  that  the  presence  of  troops 
would  only  make  matters  worse.  The  postal  authori 
ties,  influenced  by  a  variety  of  motives,  of  which,  it  was 
alleged,  a  desire  to  break  the  strike  was  one,  secured 
prompt  Federal  intervention  on  the  part  of  President 
Cleveland  and  the  use  of  Federal  troops.  Thus  the 
labor  unions  were  quickly  checkmated. 

This  action  on  the  part  of  President  Cleveland  was 
supplemented  in  July,  1894,  by  a  general  blanket  injunc 
tion  issued  from  the  Federal  district  court  in  Chicago 
to  all  persons  concerned,  ordering  them  not  to  interfere 
with  the  transmission  of  the  mails  or  with  interstate 
commerce  in  any  form.  Mr.  Debs,  president  of  the 
American  Railway  Union,  who  was  directing  the  strike 


THE   GROWTH  OF  DISSENT  161 

which  was  tying  up  interstate  commerce,  was  arrested, 
fined,  and  imprisoned  for  refusing  to  obey  this  injunc 
tion.  Mr.  Debs,  thereupon,  through  his  counsel,  claimed 
the  right  to  jury  trial,  asserting  that  the  court  could  not 
impose  a  penalty  which  was  not  provided  by  statute, 
but  which  depended  solely  upon  the  will  of  the  judge. 
On  appeal,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
upheld  the  lower  court  and  declared  that  imprisonment 
for  contempt  of  court  did  not  violate  the  principle  of 
jury  trial. 

It  was  not  merely  labor  leaders  who  were  stirred  to 
wrath  by  this  development  in  judicial  authority.  Many 
eminent  lawyers  saw  in  it  an  attack  upon  the  ancient 
safeguards  of  the  law  which  provided  for  regular  pro 
ceedings,  indictment,  the  hearing  of  witnesses,  jury 
trial,  and  the  imposition  of  only  such  punishments  as 
could  be  clearly  ascertained  in  advance.  On  the  other 
hand  others  held  it  to  be  nothing  new  at  all,  but  simply 
the  application  of  the  old  principle  that  injunctions  could 
issue  in  cases  where  irreparable  injury  might  otherwise 
ensue.  They  pointed  out  that  its  effectiveness  depended 
upon  speedy  application,  and  that  the  delays  usually 
incident  to  regular  judicial  procedure  would  destroy  its 
usefulness  altogether.  To  workingmen  it  appeared  to 
be  chiefly  an  instrument  for  imprisoning  their  leaders  x 
and  breaking  strikes  by  the  prevention  of  coercion, 
peaceful  or  otherwise.  At  all  events,  the  decision  of 
the  Supreme  Court  upholding  the  practice  and  its  / 
doctrines  added  to  the  bitterness  engendered  by  the 
income  tax  decision  —  a  bitterness  manifested  at  the 
Democratic  convention  at  Chicago  the  following  year. 


i62      CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

The  crowning  cause  of  immediate  discontent  was  the 
financial  policy  pursued  by  President  Cleveland/  which 
stirred  the  wrath  of  the  agrarians  already  agitated  over 
inflation,  and  gave  definiteness  to  an  issue  on  which 
both  parties  had  been  judiciously  ambiguous  in  their 
platforms  in  1892.  The  farmers  pointed  out  that,  not 
withstanding  the  increased  output  of  corn,  the  total 
amount  of  money  received  in  return  was  millions  less 
than  it  had  been  in  the  early  eighties.  They  emphasized 
the  fact  that  more  than  half  of  the  taxable  acreage  of 
Kansas  and  Nebraska  was  mortgaged,  and  that  many 
other  western  states  were  nearly  as  badly  off.  The 
falling  prices  and  their  inability  to  meet  their  indebted 
ness  they  attributed  to  the  demonetization  of  silver 
and  the  steady  enhancement  of  gold. 

For  the  disease,  as  they  diagnosed  it,  they  had  a 
remedy.  The  government,  they  said,  had  been  generous 
to  Wall  Street  and  financial  interests  at  large  by  selling 
bonds  at  rates  which  made  great  fortunes  for  the  narrow 
group  of  purchasers,  and  by  distributing  its  deposits 
among  the  banks  in  need  of  assistance.  The  power  of 
the  government  could  also  be  used  for  the  benefit  of 
another  class  —  namely,  themselves.  Gold  should  be 
brought  down  and  the  currency  extended  by  the  free 
coinage  of  silver  on  a  basis  of  sixteen  to  one.  The  value 
of  crops,  when  measured  in  money,  would  thus  mount 
upwards,  and  it  would  be  easier  to  pay  the  interest  on 
mortgages  and  discharge  their  indebtedness.  Further 
more,  while  the  government  was  in  the  business  of 
accommodating  the  public  it  might  loan  money  to  the 
1  See  above,  p.  106. 


THE   GROWTH  OF   DISSENT  163 

-W— ' 

c-^"r^ 

farmers  at  a  low  rate  of  interest.1  But  the  inflation  of 
the  currency  and  the  increase  of  prices  of  farm  products 
by  the  free  coinage  of  silver  were  the  leading  demands  of 
the  discontented  agrarians  —  an  old  remedy  for  an  old 
disease. 

1  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  agricultural  credit  —  a  subject  in  which 
European  countries  are  far  advanced  —  is  just  now  beginning  to  receive 
some  attention  in  quarters  where  the  demands  of  the  farmers  for  better 
terms  on  borrowed  money  were  once  denounced  as  mere  vagaries. 


v 
I 

CHAPTER  VII 

THE   CAMPAIGN   OF    1896 

IT  does  not  require  that  distant  historical  perspective, 
which  is  supposed  to  be  necessary  for  final  judgments, 
to  warrant  the  assertion  that  (the  campaign  of    1896 
marks  a  turning  point  in  the  course  of  American  politics. 
The  monetary  issue,  on  which  events  ostensibly  revolved, 
was,  it  is  true,  a,n  ancient  one,  but  the  real  conflict  was 
not  over  the  remonetization  of  silver  or  the  gold  stand 
ard.     Deep,    underlying    class    feeling    found    its    ex 
pression  in  the  conventions  of  both  partiesjand  partic 
ularly  that  of  the  Democrats,  and  forced  upon  the  atte* 
tion  of  the  country,  in  a  dramatic  manner,  a  conf. 
between  great  wealth  and  the  lower  middle  and, we 
ing  classes,  which  had  hitherto  been  recognized  only 
obscure  circles.     The  sectional  or  vertical  cleavage* 
American  politics  was  definitely  cut  by  new  lines  runni 
horizontally  through  society,  and  was  also  crossed  at 
right  angles  by  another  line  running  north  and  south, 
representing  the  western  protest  against  eastern  credi 
tors  and  the  objectionable  methods  of  great  corporations 
which  had  been  rapidly  unfolded  to  public  view  by  merci 
less  criticism  and  many  legislative  investigations. 

Even  the  Republican  party,  whose  convention  had 
been  largely  prepared  in  advance  by  the  vigorous  labors 

164 


THE   CAMPAIGN  OF   1896  165 

o"  Mr.  Marcus  A.  Hanna,1  was  not  untouched  by  the 
(  .visions  which  later  rent  the  Democratic  party  in  twain. 
"  Vhen  the  platform  was  reported  to  the  duly  assembled 
Republican  delegates  by  Mr.  Foraker,  of  Ohio,  its  firm 
declaration  of  opposition  to  free  silver,  except  by  inter 
national  agreement,  was  greeted  by  a  divided  house, 
although,  as  the  record  runs,  there  was  a  "  demonstra 
tion  of  approval  on  the  part  of  a  large  majority  of  the 
delegates  which  lasted  several  minutes."  When  a  vote 
was  taken  on  the  financial  plank,  it  was  discovered  that 
no  delegates  .favored  silver  as  against  812  in  support 
of  the  proposition  submitted  by  the  platform  committee. 
The  defeated  contingent  then  withdrew  from  the  con 
vention  after  having  presented  a  statement-in  which 
they  declared  that  "the  people  cry  aloud  for  relief; 
they  are  bending  under  a  burden  growing  heavier  with 
the  passing  hours;  endeavour  no  longer  brings  its  just 
"eward  .  .  .  and  unless  the  laws  of  the  country  and  the 

)licies  of  political  parties  shall  be  converted  into 
*  ediums  of  redress,  the  effect  of  human  desperation 
ct  ay  sometime  be  witnessed  here  as  in  other  lands  and 

.  other  ages." 

This  threat  was  firmly  met  by  the  body  of  the  conven 
tion  which  remained.  In  nominating  Mr.  Thomas  B. 
Reed,  Mr.  Lodge,  of  Massachusetts,  declared  :  "  Against 
the  Republican  party  are  arrayed  not  only  that  organized 
failure,  the  Democratic  party,  but  all  the  wandering 
forces  of  political  chaos  and  social  disorder.  .  .  .  Such 
a  man  we  want  for  our  great  office  in  these  bitter  times 
when  the  forces  of  disorder  are  loose  and  the  wreckers 

1  See  below,  p.  239. 


i66     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

with  their  false  lights  gather  at  the  shore  to  lure  the 
ship  of  state  upon  the  rocks."  Mr.  Depew,  in  nominat 
ing  Mr.  Levi  P.  Morton,  decried  all  of  the  current 
criticism  of  capital.  Mr.  Foraker,  in  presenting  the 
name  of  Mr.  McKinley,  was  more  conciliatory :  distress 
and  misery  were  abroad  in  the  land  and  bond  issues  and 
bond  syndicates  had  discredited  and  scandalized  the 
country;  but  McKinley  was  the  man  to  redeem  the 
nation. 

This  conciliatory  attitude  was  hardly  necessary,  for 
there  were  no  radical  elements  in  the  Republican  as 
sembly  after  the  withdrawal  of  the  silver  faction.  The 
proceedings  of  the  convention  were  in  fact  then  ex 
traordinarily  harmonious,  brief,  and  colorless.  The  plat 
form,  apart  from  the  sound  money  plank,  contained  no 
sign  of  the  social  conflict  which  was  being  waged  in  the 
world  outside.  Tariff,  pensions,  civil  service,  temper 
ance,  and  the  usual  formalities  of  party  programs  were 
treated  after  the  fashion  consecrated  by  time.  Railway 
and  trust  problems  were  overlooked  entirely.  Even 
the  money  plank  was  not  put  first,  and  it  was  not  s< 
phrased  as  to  constitute  the  significant  challenge  which 
it  became  in  the  campaign.  "The  Republican  party," 
it  ran,  "is  unreservedly  for  sound  money.  It  caused  the 
enactment  of  the  law  providing  for  the  resumption  of 
specie  payments  in  1879 ;  since  then  every  dollar  has 
been  good  as  gold.  We  are  unalterably  opposed  to 
every  measure  calculated  to  debase  our  currency  or 
impair  the  credit  of  our  country.  We  are,  therefore, 
opposed  to  the  free  coinage  of  silver  except  by  inter 
national  agreement  with  the  leading  commercial  nations 


THE   CAMPAIGN  OF   1896  167 

of  the  world,  which  we  pledge  ourselves  to  promote, 
and  until  such  an  agreement  can  be  obtained  the 
existing  gold  standard  must  be  maintained." 

This  clear  declaration  on  the  financial  issue  was 
apparently  not  a  part  of  the  drama  as  Mr.  Hanna  and 
Mr.  McKinley  had  staged  it.  The  former  was  in  favor 
of  the  gold  standard  so  far  as  he  understood  it,  but  he 
was  not  a  student  of  finance,  and  he  was  more  interested 
"in  getting  what  we  got,"  to  use  his  phrase,  than  in 
any  very  fine  distinctions  in  the  gold  plank.  /Mr.  ]^Jc- 
Kinley,  on  the  other  hand,  was  widely  known  asji  bi- 
metallist;  but  his  reputation  throughout  the  country 
resteoT  principally  upon  his  high  protective  doctrines. 
He,  therefore,  wished  to  avoid  the  monetary  issue  by 
straddling  it  in  such  a  way  as  not  to  alienate  the  large 
silv^rTa^Sonin~~Th^_JWest.^  Mr.  Hanna's  biographer 
tells  us  that  Mr.  Kohlsaat  claims  to  have  spent  hours 
on  Sunday,  June  7,  "  trying  to  convince  Mr.  McKinley 
of  the  necessity  of  inserting  the  word  'gold'  in  the  plat 
form.  The  latter  argued  in  opposition  that  90  per 
cent  of  his  mail  and  his  callers  were  against  such  decisive 
action,  and  he  asserted  emphatically  that  thirty  days 
after  the  convention  was  over  the  currency  question 
would  drop  out  of  sight  and  the  tariff  would  become  the 
sole  issue,  ^The  currency  plank,  tentatively  drawn  by 
Mr.  McKinley  and  his  immediate  advisers,  embodied 
his  resolution  to  keep  the  currency  issue  subordinate 
and  vague?^ \\JThe  leaders  in  the  convention,  however, 
refused  to  accept  Mr.  McKinley's  view  and  forced  him 
to  take  the  step  which  he  had  hoped  to  avoid. 

1 H.  Croly,  M.  A.  Hanna,  p.  195. 


168     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

In  his  speech  of  acceptance,  McKinley  deprecated 
and  sought  to  smooth  over  the  class  lines  which  had 
been  drawn.  "It  is  a  cause  for  painful  regret  and  solici 
tude,"  he  said,  "that  an  effort  is  being  made  by  those 
high  in  the  counsels  of  the  allied  parties  to  divide  the 
people  of  this  country  into  classes  and  create  distinc 
tions  among  us  which  in  fact  do  not  exist  and  are  repug 
nant  to  our  form  of  government.  .  .  .  Every  attempt 
made  to  array  class  against  class,  'the  classes  against 
the  masses,'  section  against  section,  labor  against  capi 
tal,  'the  poor  against  the  rich,'  or  interest  against  interest 
in  the  United  States  is  in  the  highest  degree  reprehen 
sible."  In  the  Populist  features  of  the  Democratic  plat 
form  he  saw  a  grave  menace  to  our  institutions,  but 
he  accepted  the  challenge.  "We  avoid  no  issues.  We 
meet  the  sudden,  dangerous,  and  revolutionary  assault 
upon  law  and  order  and  upon  those  to  whom  is  confided 
by  the  Constitution  and  laws  the  authority  to  uphold 
and  maintain  them,  which  our  opponents  have  made, 
with  the  same  courage  that  we  have  faced  every  emer 
gency  since  our  organization  as  a  party  more  than 
forty  years  ago." 

The  Democratic  Convention 

No  doubt  the  decisive  action  of  the  Republican  con 
vention  helped  to  consolidate  the  silver  forces  in  the 
Democratic  party;  but  even  if  the  Republicans  had 
obscured  the  silver  question  by  a  vague  declaration, 
their  opponents  would  have  come  out  definitely  against 
the  gold  standard.  This  was  so  apparent  weeks  before 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF   1896  169 

the  Democratic  national  assembly  met,  that  conserv 
atives  in  the  party  talked  of  refusing  to  participate  in 
the  party  councils,  called  at  Chicago  on  July  7.  They 
were  aware  also  that  other  and  deeper  sources  of  dis 
content  were  bound  to  manifest  themselves  when  the 
proceedings  got  under  way. J 

(pie  storm  which  broke  over  the  party  had  long  been 
gathering.  }The  Grange  and  Greenback  movements 
did  not  disappear  with  the  disappearance  of  the  outward 
signs  of  organization ;  they  only  merged  into  the  Popu 
list  movement  with  cumulative  effect.  The  election 
of  1892  was  ominous,  for  the  agrarian  party  had  polled 
a  million  votes.  It  had  elected  members  of  Congress 
and  presidential  electors;  it  was  organized  and  deter 
mined.  It  arose  from  a  mass  of  discontent  which  was 
justified,  if  misdirected.  It  was  no  temporary  wave, 
as  superficial  observers  have  imagined.  It  had  ele 
ments  of  solidity  which  neither  of  the  old  parties  could 
ignore  or  cover  up.  No  one  was  more  conscious  of  this 
than  the  western  and  southern  leaders  in  the  Demo 
cratic  party.  They  had  been  near  the  base  of  action, 
and  they  thought  that  what  the  eastern  leaders  called  a 
riot  was  in  fact  the  beginning  of  a  revolution.  Unwill 
ing  to  desert  their  traditional  party,  they  decided  to 
make  the  party  desert  its  traditions,  and  they  came  to 
the  Democratic  convention  in  Chicago  prepared  for 
war  to  the  hilt. 

From  the  opening  to  the  close,  the  Democratic  con 
vention  in  Chicago  in  1896  was  vibrant  with  class  feel 
ing.  Even  in  the  prayer  with  which  the  proceedings 
began,  the  clergyman  pleaded:  "May  the  hearts  of  all 


i  yo     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

be  filled  with  profound  respect  and  sympathy  for  our 
toiling  multitudes,  oppressed  with  burdens  too  heavy 
for  them  to  bear  —  heavier  than  we  should  allow  them 
to  bear,"  —  a  prayer  that  might  have  been  an  echo  of 
some  of  the  speeches  made  in  behalf  of  the  income  tax 
in  Congress. 

/'The  struggle  began  immediately  after  the  prayer, 
when  the  presiding  officer,  on  behalf  of  the  retiring 
national  committee,  reported  as  temporary  chairman 
of  the  convention,  David  B.  Hill,  of  New  York,  the 
unrelenting  opponent  of  the  income  tax  and  everything 
that  savored  of  it.  Immediately  afterward,  Mr.  Clay 
ton,  speaking  in  behalf  of  twenty-three  members  of  the 
national  committee  as  opposed  to  twenty-seven,  pre 
sented  a  minority  report  which  proposed  the  Honorable 
John  W.  Daniel,  of  Virginia,  as  chairman.  Pleas  were 
made  that  the  traditions  of  the  party  ought  not  to  be 
violated  by  a  refusal  to  accept  the  recommendations  of 
the  national  committee^) 

{  After  a  stormy  debate,  the  minority  report  of  the 
national  committee,  proposing  Mr.  Daniel  for  chair 
man,  was  carried  by  a  vote  of  556  to  349.  j  The  states 
which  voted  solidly  or  principally  for  Mr.  Hill  were 
Connecticut,  Delaware,  Massachusetts,  Michigan,  Ne 
braska,  New  Hampshire,  New  Jersey,  New  York, 
Pennsylvania,  Rhode  Island,  South  Dakota,  Vermont, 
Wisconsin,  and  Alaska  —  all  of  the  New  England  and 
Central  seaboard  states,  which  represented  the  ac 
cumulated  wealth  of  the  country.  The  official  pro 
ceedings  of  the  convention  state,  "When  the  result  of 
this  vote  was  announced,  there  was  a  period  of  nearly 


THE   CAMPAIGN  OF   1896  171 

twenty  minutes  during  which  no  business  could  be  trans 
acted,  on  account  of  the  applause,  cheers,  noise  and 
confusion." 

In  his  opening  speech  as  chairman,  Mr.  Daniel  de 
clared  that  they  were  witnessing  "an  uprising  of  the 
people  for  American  emancipation  from  the  conspiracies 
of  European  kings  led  by  Great  Britain,  which  seek  to 
destroy  one  half  of  the  money  of  the  world."  He 
declared^n  favor  ^f_bme tajEs^ni_and jievoted  most  of 
his  speech— to  -the  monetary— question  and  to  repeated 
decjaj^tio^s_of_nriaiicial  independence,  in -behalf  ..of  the 
United— States .J  He  also  attacked,  however,  the  tax 
system  which  the  Democrats  inherited  from  the  Repub 
licans  in  1893,  and  in  speaking  of  the  deficit  which  was 
incurred  under  the  Democratic  tariff  act  he  declared 
that  it  would  have  been  met  by  the  income  tax  incor 
porated  in  the  tariff  bill  "had  not  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  reversed  its  settled  doctrines  of  a 
hundred  years."  On  the  second  day  of  the  convention, 
while  the  committees  were  preparing  their  reports,  Gov 
ernor  Hogg,  of  Texas,  Senator  Blackburn,  of  Kentucky, 
Governor  Altgeld,  of  Illinois,  and  other  gentlemen  were 
invited  to  address  the  convention. 

The  first  of  these  speakers  denounced  the  Republican 
party  as  a  " great  class  maker  and  mass  smasher"; 
he  scorned  that  " farcical  practice"  which  had  given 
governmental  protection  to  the  wealthy  and  left  the 
laborer  to  protect  himself.  "This  protected  class  of 
Republicans,"  he  exclaimed,  "proposes  now  to  destroy 
labor  organizations.  To  that  end  it  has  organized  syn 
dicates,  pools,  and  trusts,  and  proposes  through  the 


172      CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

Federal  courts,  in  the  exercise  of  their  unconstitutional 
powers  by  the  issuance  of  extraordinary  unconstitutional 
writs,  to  strike  down,  to  suppress,  and  to  overawe  those 
organizations,  backed  by  the  Federal  bayonet.  .  .  . 
Men  who  lived  there  in  their  mansions  and  rolled  in 
luxuries  were  the  only  ones  to  get  the  benefit  of  this 
Republican  [sugar]  bounty  called  protection."  Senator 
Blackburn,  of  Kentucky,  exclaimed  that  "Christ  with 
a  lash  drove  from  the  temple  a  better  set  of  men  than 
those  who  for  twenty  years  have  shaped  the  financial 
policy  of  this  country."  Governor  Altgekf  declared : 
"We  have  seen  the  streets  of  our  cities  filled  with  idle 
men,  with  hungry  women,  and  with  ragged  children. 
The  country  to-day  looks  to  the  deliberations  of  this 
convention  to  promise  some  form  of  relief."  This 

the  remonetization-ol-silver 


v   and   the   emancipation   of   the   country  from   English 
capitalists  and  eastern  financiers. 

On  the  third  day  of  the  convention,  Senator  Jones,  of 
Arkansas,  chairman  of  the  committee  on  platform, 
reported  the  conclusions  of  the  majority  of  his  com 
mittee.  In  the  platform,  as  reported,  there  were  many 
expressions  of  class  feeling.  It  declared  that  the  act 
of  1873  demonetizing  silver  caused  a  fall  in  the  price  of 
commodities  produced  by  the  people,  a  heavy  increase 
in  the  public  taxation  and  in  all  debts,  public  and  pri 
vate,  the  enrichment  of  the  money-lending  class  at 
home  and  abroad,  the  prostration  of  industry,  and  the 
impoverishment  of  the  people.  The  McKinley  tariff  was 
denounced  as  "a  prolific  breeder  of  trusts  and  monopo- 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF   1896  173 

lies"  which  had  "  enriched  the  few  at  the  expense  of  the 
many." 

mnnfiy-qnpgHon    however,  the 


_ 

paramount  issue,  \nd  declared  for  "  the^f  ree_j 
limited  coinage  j)j  both  silver  and  gold  at_the_present 
legal  ratio  of  sixteen  to  one  without  waiting  for  the  aid 
or  ^consent  of  any  other  nation."  It  stated  that,  until 
the  monetary  question  was  settled,  no  changes  should 
be  made  in  the  tariff  laws  except  for  the  purpose  of 
meeting  the  deficit  caused  by  the  adverse  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court  in  the  income  tax  cases.  The  platform 
at  this  point  turned  upon  the  Court  and  asserted  that 
the  income  tax  law  had  been  passed  "by  a  Democratic 
Congress  in  strict  pursuance  of  the  uniform  decisions 
of  that  Court  for  nearly  a  hundred  years."  It  then 
hinted  at  a  reconstruction  of  the  Court,  declaring  that, 
"it  is  the  duty  of  Congress  to  use  all  the  constitutional 
power  which  remains  after  that  decision  or  which  may 
come  from  its  reversal  by  the  Court,  as  it  may  hereafter 
be  constituted,  so  that  the  burden  of  taxation  may  be 
equally  and  impartially  laid,  to  the  end  that  wealth  may 
bear  its  due  proportion  of  the  expense  of  the  govern 
ment." 

The  platform  contained  many  expressions  of  sympathyv 
with  labor.  "As  labor  creates  the  wealth  of  the  coun 
try,"  ran  one  plank,  "we  demand  the  passage  of  such 
laws  as  may  be  necessary  to  protect  it  in  all  its  rights." 
It  favored  arbitration  for  labor  conflicts  in  interstate 
commerce.  Referring  to  the  recent  Pullman  strike  and 
the  labor  war  in  Chicago,  it  denounced  "  arbitrary  inter 
ference  by  Federal  authorities  in  local  affairs  as  a  viola- 


174     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

tion  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  a  crime 
against  free  institutions,  and  we  specially  object  to  gov 
ernment  by  injunction  as  a  new  and  highly  dangerous 
form  of  oppression  by  which  Federal  judges,  in  contempt 
of  the  laws  of  the  states  and  rights  of  citizens,  become  at 
once  legislators,  judges,  and  executioners ;  and  we  ap 
prove  the  bill  passed  by  the  last  session  of  the  United 
States  Senate,  and  now  pending  in  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives,  relative  to  contempt  in  Federal  courts  and 
providing  for  trials  by  jury  in  certain  cases  of  contempt." 

The  platform  did  not  expressly  attack  the  adminis 
tration  of  President  Cleveland,  but  the  criticism  of  the 
intervention  by  Federal  authorities  in  local  affairs  was 
directed  particularly  to  his  interference  in  the  Chicago 
strike.  The  departure  from  the  ordinary  practice  of 
praising  the  administration  of  the  party's  former  leader 
itself  revealed  the  feeling  of  the  majority  of  the  conven 
tion. 

A  minority  of  the  platform  committee  composed  of 
sixteen  delegates  presented  objections  to  the  platform 
as  reported  by  Senator  Jones  and  offered  amendments. 
In  their  report  the  minority  asserted  that  many  declara 
tions  in  the  majority  report  were  "ill-considered  and 
ambiguously  phrased,  while  others  are  extreme  and 
revolutionary  of  the  well-recognized  principles  of  the 
party."  The  free  coinage  of  silver  independently  of 
other  nations,  the  minority  claimed,  would  place  the 
United  States  at  once  "upon  a  silver  basis,  impair  con 
tracts,  disturb  business,  diminish  the  purchasing  powers 
of  the  wages  of  labor,  and  inflict  irreparable  evils  upon 
our  nation's  commerce  and  industry."  The  minority, 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1896  175 

therefore,  proposed  the  maintenance  of  the  existing 
gold  standard ;  and  concluded  by  criticizing  the  report 
of  the  majority  as  "  defective  in  failing  to  make  any 
recognition  of  the  honesty,  economy,  courage,  and 
fidelity  of  the  present  Democratic  administration." 
This  minority  report  was  supplemented  by  two  amend 
ments  proposed  by  Senator  Hill,  one  to  the  effect  that 
any  change  in  the  monetary  standard  should  not  apply 
to  existing  contracts  and  the  other  pledging  the  party  to 
suspend,  within  one  year  from  its  enactment,  the  law  pro 
viding  for  the  independent  free  coinage  of  silver,  in  case 
that  coinage  did  not  realize  the  expectation  of  the  party 
to  secure  a  parity  between  gold  and  silver  at  the  ratio  of 
sixteen  to  one. 

After  the  presentation  of  the  platform  and  the  pro 
posed  changes,  an  exciting  and  disorderly  debate  fol 
lowed.  The  discussion  was  opened  by  Mr.  Tillman,  who 
exclaimed  that  the  Civil  War  had  emancipated  the 
black  slaves  and  that  they  were  now  in  convention  to 
head  a  fight  for  the  emancipation  of  the  white  slaves, 
even  if  it  disrupted  the  Democratic  party  as  the  Civil 
War  had  disrupted  it.  Without  any  equivocation  and 
amid  loud  and  prolonged  hissing,  he  declared  that  the 
new  issue  like  the  old  one  was  sectional  —  a  declaration 
of  political  war  on  the  part  of  the  hewers  of  wood  and 
the  drawers  of  water  in  the  southern  and  western  states 
against  the  East.  He  compared  the  growth  of  fifteen 
southern  states  in  wealth  and  population  with  the 
growth  of  Pennsylvania ;  he  compared  Ohio,  Indiana, 
Illinois,  Iowa,  and  Missouri  with  Massachusetts;  to 
these  five  western  states  he  added  Kentucky,  Tennessee, 


176     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

Kansas,  and  Nebraska,  and  compared  them  all  with  the 
state  of  New  York.  The  upshot  of  his  comparison  was 
that  the  twenty-five  southern  and  western  states  were 
in  economic  bondage  to  the  East  and  that  we  now  had  a 
money  oligarchy  more  insolent  than  the  slave  oligarchy 
which  the  Civil  War  had  overthrown. 

Mr.  Tillman  could  scarcely  contain  his  wrath  when  he 
came  to  a  consideration  of  the  proposal  to  indorse  Cleve 
land's  administration.  He  denounced  the  Democratic 
President  as  "a  tool  of  Wall  Street";  and  declared  that 
they  could  not  indorse  him  without  writing  themselves 
down  as  "asses  and  liars.".  "They  ask  us  to  indorse 
his  courage,"  exclaimed  Mr.  Tillman.  "Well,  now,  no 
one  disputes  the  man's  boldness  and  obstinacy,  because 
he  had  the  courage  to  ignore  his  oath  of  office,  and  re 
deem,  in  gold,  paper  obligations  of  the  government, 
which  were  payable  in  coin  —  both  gold  and  silver,  and, 
furthermore,  he  had  the  courage  to  override  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States  and  invaded  the  state  of 
Illinois  with  the  United  States  army  and  undertook  to 
override  the  rights  and  liberties  of  his  fellow  citizens. 
They  ask  us  to  indorse  his  fidelity.  He  has  been  faithful 
unto  death,  or  rather  unto  the  death  of  the  Democratic 
party,  so  far  as  he  represents  it,  through  the  policy  of  the 
friends  that  he  had  in  New  York  and  ignored  the  entire 
balance  of  the  Union."  Mr.  Tillman  was  dissatisfied 
with  the  platform  because  it  did  not  attack  Mr.  Cleve 
land's  policies,  and,  amid  great  confusion  throughout 
the  hall,  he  proposed  that  the  platform  should  "de 
nounce  the  administration  of  President  Cleveland  as 
undemocratic  and  tyrannical."  He  warned  the  convention 


THE   CAMPAIGN  OF   1896  177 

that,  "If  this  Democratic  ship  goes  to  sea  on  storm- 
tossed  waves  without  fumigating  itself,  without  express 
repudiation  of  this  man  who  has  sought  to  destroy  his 
party,  then  the  Republican  ship  goes  into  port  and  you 
go  down  in  disgrace,  defeated  in  November."  In  his 
proposed  amendment  to  the  platform,  he  asserted  that 
Cleveland  had  used  the  veto  power  to  thwart  the  will  of 
the  people,  and  the  appointive  power  to  subsidize  the 
press  and  debauch  Congress.  The  issue  of  bonds  to  pur 
chase  gold,  to  discharge  obligations  payable  in  coin  at 
the  option  of  the  government,  and  the  use  of  the  pro 
ceeds  for  ordinary  expenses,  he  denounced  as  "unlawful 
and  usurpations  of  authority  deserving  of  impeachment." 

After  Senator  Jones  was  given  the  floor  for  a  iew 
moments  to  repudiate  the  charge  brought  by  Mr.  Till- 
man  that  the  fight  was  sectional  in  character,  Senator 
Hill,  of  New  York,  began  the  real  attack  upon  the  plat 
form  proposed  by  the  majority.  The  Senator  opened 
by  saying  that  he  was  a  Democrat,  but  not  a  revolutionist, 
that  the  question  before  them  was  one  of  business  and 
finance,  not  of  bravery  and  loyalty,  and  that  the  first 
step  toward  monetary  reform  should  be  a  statement  in 
favor  of  international  bimetallism.  He  followed  this 
by  a  special  criticism  of  the  declaration  in  favor  of  the 
ratio  of  sixteen  to  one  which  was,  in  his  opinion,  not 
only  an  unwise  and  unnecessary  thing,  but  destined  to 
return  to  plague  them  in  the  future. 

Senator  Hill  then  turned  to  the  income  tax  which  he 
had  so  vigorously  denounced  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate 
two  years  before.  "What  was  the  necessity,"  he  asked, 
"for  putting  into  the  platform  other  questions  which 


178     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

have  never  been  made  the  tests  of  Democratic  loyalty 
before  ?  Why  revive  the  disputed  question  of  the  policy 
and  constitutionality  of  an  income  tax?  .  .  .  Why,  I 
say,  should  it  be  left  to  this  convention  to  make  as  a 
tenet  of  Democratic  faith  belief  in  the  propriety  and 
constitutionality  of  an  income  tax  law  ? 

"Why  was  it  wise  to  assail  the  Supreme  Court  of  your 
country  ?  Will  some  one  tell  what  that  clause  means  in 
this  platform  ?  '  If  you  meant  what  you  said  and  said 
what  you  meant,'  will  some  one  explain  that  provision? 
That  provision,  if  it  means  anything,  means  that  it  is 
the  duty  of  Congress  to  reconstruct  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  country.  It  means,  and  such  purpose  was  openly 
avowed,  it  means  the  adding  of  additional  members  to 
the  Court  or  the  turning  out  of  office  and  reconstructing 
the  whole  Court.  I  said  I  will  not  follow  any  such  rev 
olutionary  step  as  that.  Whenever  before  in  the  his 
tory  of  this  country  has  devotion  to  an  income  tax  been 
made  the  test  of  Democratic  loyalty  ?  Never !  Have 
you  not  undertaken  enough,  my  good  friends,  now  with 
out  seeking  to  put  in  this  platform  these  unnecessary, 
foolish,  and  ridiculous  things?" 

"What  further  have  you  done?"  continued  the 
Senator.  "In  this  platform  you  have  declared,  for  the 
first  time  in  the  history  of  this  country,  that  you  are 
opposed  to  any  life  tenure  whatever  for  office.  Our 
fathers  before  us,  our  Democratic  fathers,  whom  we 
revere,  in  the  establishment  of  this  government,  gave 
our  Federal  judges  a  life  tenure  of  office.  What  necessity 
was  there  for  reviving  this  question  ?  How  foolish  and 
how  unnecessary,  in  my  opinion.  Democrats,  whose 


THE   CAMPAIGN  OF   1896  179 

whole  lives  have  been  devoted  to  the  service  of  the  party, 
men  whose  hopes,  whose  ambitions,  whose  aspirations, 
all  lie  within  party  lines,  are  to  be  driven  out  of  the  party 
upon  this  new  question  of  life  tenure  for  the  great  judges 
of  our  Federal  courts.  No,  no ;  this  is  a  revolutionary 
step,  this  is  an  unwise  step,  this  is  an  unprecedented 
step  in  our  party  history." 

Senator  Hill  then  turned  to  a  defense  of  President 
Cleveland's  policy,  denouncing  the  attempt  to  bring  in 
the  bond  issue  as  foolish  and  calculated  to  put  them  on 
the  defensive  in  every  school  district  in  the  country. 
He  closed  by  begging  the  convention  not  "to  drive  old 
Democrats  out  of  the  party  who  have  grown  gray  in  the 
service,  to  make  room  for  a  lot  of  Republicans  and  Popu 
lists,  and  political  nondescripts." 

Senator  Hill's  protest  was  supported  by  Senator  Vilas 
from  Wisconsin,  who  saw  in  the  proposed  free  coinage  of 
silver  no  difference,  except  in  degree,  between  "the  con 
fiscation  of  one  half  of  the  credits  of  the  nation  for  the 
benefit  of  debtors,"  and  "a  universal  distribution  of 
property."  In  this  radical  scheme  there  was  nothing 
short  of  "the  beginning  of  the  overthrow  of  all  law,  of 
all  justice,  of  all  security  and  repose  in  the  social  order." 
He  warned  the  convention  that  the  American  people 
would  not  tolerate  the  first  steps  toward  the  atrocities 
of  the  French  Revolution,  although  "in  the  vastness  of 
this  country  there  may  be  some  Marat  unknown,  some 
Danton  or  Robespierre."  He  asked  the  members  of  the 
convention  when  and  where  robbery  by  law  had  come  to 
be  a  Democratic  doctrine,  and  with  solemn  earnestness 
he  pleaded  with  them  not  to  launch  the  old  party  out 


i8o     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

on  a  wild  career  or  to  "pull  down  the  pillars  of  the  temple 
and  crush  us  all  beneath  the  ruins."  He  declared  that 
the  gold  standard  was  not  responsible  for  falling  prices ; 
that  any  stable  standard  had  "no  more  to  do  with  prices 
than  a  yard  stick  or  a  pair  of  scales."  He  begged  them 
to  adopt  the  proposed  amendment  which  would  limit  the 
effect  of  the  change  of  standards  to  future  contracts  and 
thus  deliver  the  platform  from  an  imputation  of  a  pur 
pose  to  plunder. 

The  closing  speech  for  the  platform  was  then  made  by 
Mr.  William  Jennings  Bryan,  of  Nebraska,  who  clothed 
his  plea  in  the  armor  of  righteousness,  announcing  that 
he  had  come  to  speak  "in  defense  of  a  cause  as  holy  as 
the  cause  of  liberty  —  the  cause  of  humanity."  The 
spirit  and  zeal  of  a  crusader  ran  through  his  speech.  In 
deed,  when  speaking  of  the  campaign  which  the  Silver 
Democrats  had  made  to  capture  the  party,  he  referred 
to  that  frenzy  which  inspired  the  crusaders  under  the 
leadership  of  Peter  the  Hermit.  He  spoke  in  defense 
of  the  wage  earner,  the  lawyer  in  the  country  town,  the 
merchant  at  the  crossroads  store,  the  farmer  and  the 
miner,  —  naming  them  one  after  the  other  and  ranging 
himself  on  their  side.  "We  stand  here,"  he  said,  "rep 
resenting  people  who  are  the  equals  before  the  law  of  the 
largest  cities  in  the  state  of  Massachusetts.  When  you 
come  before  us  and  tell  us  that  we  shall  disturb  your 
business  interests,  we  reply  that  you  have  disturbed  our 
business  interests  by  your  action.  We  say  to  you  that 
you  have  made  too  limited  in  its  application  the  definition 
of  a  business  man.  The  man  who  is  employed  for  wages 
is  as  much  a  business  man  as  his  employer.  The  attor- 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF   1896  181 

ney  in  a  country  town  is  as  much  a  business  man  as  the 
corporation  counsel  in  a  great  metropolis.  The  merchant 
at  the  crossroads  store  is  as  much  a  business  man  as  the 
merchant  of  New  York.  The  farmer  who  goes  forth  in 
the  morning  and  toils  all  day,  begins  in  the  spring  and 
toils  all  summer,  and  by  the  application  of  brain  and 
muscle  to  the  natural  resources  of  this  country  creates 
wealth,  is  as  much  a  business  man  as  the  man  who  goes 
upon  the  Board  of  Trade  and  bets  upon  the  price  of 
grain.  The  miners  who  go  a  thousand  feet  into  the 
earth  or  climb  two  thousand  feet  upon  the  cliffs,  and  bring 
forth  from  their  hiding  places  the  precious  metals  to  be 
poured  in  the  channels  of  trade,  are  as  much  business  men 
as  jthe  few  financial  magnates  who,  in  a  back  room,  corner 
the  money  of  the  world. 

"We  come  to  speak  for  this  broader  class  of  business 
men.  Ah,  my  friends,  we  say  not  one  word  against 
those  who  live  upon  the  Atlantic  coast ;  but  those  hardy 
pioneers  who  braved  all  the  dangers  of  the  wilderness, 
who  have  made  the  desert  to  blossom  as  the  rose  —  those 
pioneers  away  out  there,  rearing  their  children  near  to 
nature's  heart,  where  they  can  mingle  their  voices  with 
the  voices  of  the  birds  —  out  there  where  they  have 
erected  schoolhouses  for  the  education  of  their  children 
and  churches  where  they  praise  their  Creator,  and  the 
cemeteries  where  sleep  the  ashes  of  their  dead  —  are  as 
deserving  of  the  consideration  of  this  party  as  any  people 
in  this  country. 

"It  is  for  these  that  we  speak.  We  do  not  come  as 
aggressors.  Our  war  is  not  a  war  of  conquest.  We  are 
fighting  in  the  defense  of  our  homes,  our  families,  and 


182     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

posterity.  We  have  petitioned,  and  our  petitions  have 
been  scorned.  We  have  entreated,  and  our  entreaties 
have  been  disregarded.  We  have  begged,  and  they  have 
mocked  when  our  calamity  came. 

"  We  beg  no  longer ;  we  entreat  no  more ;  we  petition 
no  more.  We  defy  them  !" 

Mr.  Bryan  then  took  up  the  income  tax.  He  repudiated 
the  idea  that  the  proposed  platform  contained  a  criticism 
of  the  Supreme  Court.  He  said,  "  We  have  simply  called 
attention  to  what  you  know.  If  you  want  criticisms, 
read  the  dissenting  opinions  of  the  court."  He  denied 
that  the  income  tax  law  was  unconstitutional  when  it  was 
passed,  or  even  when  it  went  before  the  Supreme  Court 
for  the  first  time.  " It  did  not  become  unconstitutional," 
he  exclaimed,  "until  one  judge  changed  his  mind ;  and  we 
cannot  be  expected  to  know  when  a  judge  will  change  his 
mind." 

The  monetary  question  was  the  great  paramount 
issue.  But  Mr.  Bryan  did  not  stop  to  discuss  any  of 
the  technical  points  involved  in  it.  Protection  had 
slain  its  thousands,  and  the  gold  standard  had  slain  its 
tens  of  thousands ;  the  people  of  the  United  States  did 
not  surrender  their  rights  of  self-government  to  foreign 
potentates  and  powers.  The  common  people  of  no  land 
had  ever  declared  in  favor  of  the  gold  standard,  but  bond 
holders  had.  If  the  gold  standard  was  a  good  thing,  inter 
national  bimetallism  was  wrong;  if  the  gold  standard 
was  a  bad  thing,  the  United  States  ought  not  to  wait  for 
the  help  of  other  nations  in  righting  a  wrong  —  trrs  was 
the  line  of  Mr.  Bryan's  attack.  And  he  concluded  by 
saying:  "Mr.  Carlisle  said,  in  1878,  that  this  was  a 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF   1896  183 

struggle  between  the  idle  holders  of  idle  capital  and  the 
struggling  masses  who  produce  the  wealth  and  pay  the 
taxes  of  the  country ;  and,  my  friends,  it  is  simply  a 
question  that  we  shall  decide  upon  which  side  shall  the 
Democratic  party  fight?  Upon  the  side  of  the  idle 
holders  of  idle  capital,  or  upon  the  side  of  the  struggling 
masses?  That  is  the  question  that  the  party  must 
answer  first;  and  then  it  must  be  answered  by  each 
individual  hereafter.  The  sympathies  of  the  Demo 
cratic  party,  as  described  by  the  platform,  are  on  the 
side  of  the  struggling  masses,  who  have  ever  been  the 
foundation  of  the  Democratic  party. 

"  There   are   two   ideas   of   government.     There   are 
those  who  believe  that  if  you  just  legislate  to  make  the   / 
well-to-do  prosperous,  their  prosperity  will  leak  through 
on  those  below.     The  Democratic  idea  has  been  that  if 
you  legislate  to  make  the  masses  prosperous,  their  pros 
perity  will  find  its  way  up  and  through  every  class  that  1 
rests  upon  it. 

"You  come  to  us  and  tell  us  that  the  great  cities  are 
in  favor  of  the  gold  standard.  I  tell  you  that  the  great 
cities  rest  upon  these  broad  and  fertile  prairies.  Burn 
down  your  cities  and  leave  our  farms,  and  your  cities 
will  spring  up  again  as  if  by  magic.  But  destroy  our 
farms,  and  the  grass  will  grow  in  the  streets  of  every  city 
in  this  country. 

"My  friends,  we  shall  declare  that  this  nation  is  able 
to  legislate  for  its  own  people  on  every  question,  with 
out  waiting  for  the  aid  or  consent  of  any  other  nation  on 
earth,  and  upon  that  issue  we  expect  to  carry  every  single 
State  in  this  Union. 


184     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

"I  shall  not  slander  the  fair  State  of  Massachusetts, 
nor  the  State  of  New  York,  by  saying  that  when  its  citi 
zens  are  confronted  with  the  proposition,  'Is  this  nation 
able  to  attend  to  its  own  business  ? '  -  —  I  will  not  slander 
either  one  by  saying  that  the  people  of  those  States  will 
declare  our  helpless  impotency  as  a  nation  to  attend  to 
our  own  business.  It  is  the  issue  of  1776  over  again. 
Our  ancestors,  when  but  3,000,000,  had  the  courage  to 
declare  their  political  independence  of  every  other  nation 
upon  earth.  Shall  we,  their  descendants,  when  we  have 
grown  to  70,000,000,  declare  that  we  are  less  independent 
than  our  forefathers  ?  No,  my  friends,  it  will  never  be 
the  judgment  of  this  people.  Therefore,  we  care  not 
upon  what  lines  the  battle  is  fought.  If  they  say  bi 
metallism  is  good,  but  we  cannot  have  it  till  some  nation 
helps  us,  we  reply  that,  instead  of  having  a  gold  standard 
because  England  has,  we  shall  restore  bimetallism,  and 
then  let  England  have  bimetallism  because  the  United 
States  have. 

"If  they  dare  to  come  out  and  in  the  open  defend  the 
gold  standard  as  a  good  thing,  we  shall  fight  them  to 
the  uttermost,  having  behind  us  the  producing  masses  of 
the  Nation  and  the  world.  Having  behind  us  the  com 
mercial  interests  and  the  laboring  interests  and  all  the 
toiling  masses,  we  shall  answer  their  demands  for  a  gold 
standard  by  saying  to  them,  you  shall  not  press  down 
upon  the  brow  of  labor  this  crown  of  thorns.  You  shall 
not  crucify  mankind  upon  a  cross  of  gold." 

The  record  of  the  convention  states  that  "the  con 
clusion  of  Mr.  Bryan's  speech  was  the  signal  for  a  tre 
mendous  outburst  of  noise,  cheers,  etc.  The  standards 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF   1896  185 

of  many  states  were  carried  from  their  places  and  gath 
ered  about  the  Nebraska  delegation."  Never  in  the 
history  of  convention  oratory  had  a  speaker  so  swayed 
the  passions  of  his  auditors  and  so  quickly  made  him 
self  unquestionably  "  the  man  of  the  hour." 

After  some  parliamentary  skirmishing,  Mr.  Hill  suc 
ceeded  in  securing  from  the  convention  a  vote  on  the 
proposition  of  the  minority  in  favor  of  the  maintenance 
of  the  gold  standard,  "  until  international  cooperation 
among  the  leading  nations  in  the  coinage  of  silver  can 
be  secured."  For  this  proposition  the  eastern  states 
voted  almost  solidly,  with  some  help  from  the  western 
states.  Connecticut  gave  her  twelve  votes  for  the  sub 
stitute  amendment ;  Delaware,  five  of  her  six  votes ; 
Maine,  ten  out  of  twelve ;  Maryland,  twelve  out  of  six 
teen  ;  Massachusetts,  twenty-seven  out  of  thirty ;  New 
Hampshire,  New  Jersey,  New  York,  Pennsylvania, 
Rhode  Island,  and  Vermont  gave  their  entire  vote  for 
the  gold  standard.  The  eastern  states  secured  a  little 
support  in  the  West  and  South.  Minnesota  gave  eleven 
out  of  seventeen  votes  for  the  amendment ;  Wisconsin 
voted  solidly  for  it ;  Florida  gave  three  out  of  eight 
votes ;  Washington  gave  three  out  of  eight ;  Alaska 
voted  solidly  for  it ;  the  District  of  Columbia  and  New 
Mexico  each  cast  two  out  of  the  six  votes  allotted  to 
them  in  the  convention.  Out  of  a  total  of  929  votes 
cast,  303  were  for  the  minority  amendment  and  626 
against  it. 

The  minority  proposition  to  commend  "the  honesty, 
economy,  courage,  and  fidelity  of  the  present  Democratic 
administration "  was  then  put  to  the  convention  and 


i86     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

received  a  vote  of  357  to  564  —  nine  not  voting.  The 
additional  support  to  the  eastern  states  came  this  time 
principally  from  California,  Michigan,  and  Minnesota; 
but  the  division  between  the  Northeast  and  the  West  and 
South  was  sharply  maintained.  The  adoption  of  the 
platform  as  reported  by  the  majority  of  the  committee 
was  then  effected  by  a  vote  of  628  to  301. 

In  the  evening  the  convention  turned  to  the  selection 
of  candidates.  In  the  nominating  speeches,  the  char 
acter  of  the  revolution  in  American  politics  came  out 
even  more  clearly  than  in  the  debates  on  the  platform. 
The  enemy  had  been  routed,  and  the  convention  was  in 
the  hands  of  the  radicals,  and  they  did  not  have  to  com 
promise  and  pick  phrases  in  the  hope  of  harmony. 

Richard  Bland,  of  Missouri,  was  the  first  man  put  before 
the  convention,  and  he  was  represented  as  "the  living, 
breathing  embodiment  of  the  silver  cause"  —a  candi 
date  chosen  "not  from  the  usurer's  den,  nor  temple  of 
Mammon  where  the  clink  of  gold  drowns  the  voice  of 
patriotism ;  but  from  the  farm,  the  workshop,  the  mine 
—  from  the  hearts  and  homes  of  the  people."  Mr. 
Overmeyer,  of  Kansas,  seconded  the  nomination  of  Mr. 
Bland  —  "that  Tiberius  Gracchus"  —  " in  the  name  of 
the  farmers  of  the  United  States;  in  the  name  of  the 
homeless  wanderers  who  throng  your  streets  in  quest  of 
bread ;  in  the  name  of  that  mighty  army  of  the  unem 
ployed  ;  in  the  name  of  that  mightier  army  which  has 
risen  in  insurrection  against  every  form  of  despotism." 

Mr.  Bryan  was  presented  as  that  young  giant  of  the 
West,  that  friend  of  the  people,  that  champion  of  the 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF   1896  187 

lowly,  that  apostle  and  prophet  of  this  great  crusade 
for  financial  reform  —  a  new  Cicero  to  meet  the  new 
Catilines  of  to-day  —  to  lead  the  Democratic  party,  the 
defender  of  the  poor,  and  the  protector  of  the  oppressed, 
which  this  day  sent  forth  "  tidings  of  great  joy  to  all  the 
toiling  millions  of  this  overburdened  land." 

On  the  first  ballot,  fourteen  candidates  were  voted  for, 
but  Mr.  Bland  and  Mr.  Bryan  were  clearly  in  the  lead. 
On  the  fifth  ballot,  Mr.  Bryan  was  declared  nominated 
by  a  vote  of  652  out  of  930.  Throughout  the  balloting, 
most  of  the  eastern  states  abstained  from  voting.  Ten 
delegates  from  Connecticut,  seventeen  or  eighteen  from 
Massachusetts,  a  majority  from  New  Jersey,  all  of  the 
delegates  from  New  York,  and  a  majority  of  the  dele 
gates  from  Wisconsin  refused  to  take  any  part  at  all. 
Pennsylvania  remained  loyal  throughout  to  the  nominee 
from  that  state,  Pattison,  although  it  was  a  forlorn  hope. 
Thus  in  the  balloting  for  candidates,  we  discover  the 
same  alignment  of  the  East  against  the  West  and  the^/ 
South  which  was  evident  in  the  vote  on  the  platform. 
In  the  vote  on  the  Vice  President  which  followed,  the 
eastern  states  refused  to  participate  —  from  250  to  260 
delegates  abstaining  during  the  five  ballots  which  re 
sulted  in  the  nomination  of  Sewall.  New  York  consist 
ently  abstained ;  so  did  New  Jersey ;  while  a  majority 
of  the  delegates  from  Pennsylvania  and  Massachusetts 
refused  to  take  part. 

In  the  notification  speech  delivered  by  Mr.  Stone  at 
Madison  Square  Garden  in  New  York  on  August  12, 
the  Democratic  party  was  represented  as  the  champion 
of  the  masses  and  their  leader  as  "a  plain  man  of  the 


i88     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

people."  He  defended  the  men  of  the  Chicago  conven 
tion  against  the  charge  of  being  cranks,  anarchists,  and 
socialists,  declaring  them  to  be  the  representatives  of  the 
industrial  and  producing  classes  who  constituted  "the 
solid  strength  and  safety  of  the  state"  against  the  com 
bined  aggressions  of  foreign  money  changers  and  Angli 
cized  American  millionaires  —  "English  toadies  and  the 
pampered  minions  of  corporate  rapacity."  Against 
the  selfish  control  of  the  privileged  classes,  he  placed 
the  sovereignty  of  the  people,  declaring  that  within  both 
of  the  old  parties  there  was  a  mighty  struggle  for  su 
premacy  between  those  who  stood  for  the  sovereignty  of 
the  people  and  those  who  believed  in  "the  divinity  of 
pelf."  He  took  pride  in  the  fact  that  the  convention 
represented  "  the  masses  of  the  people,  the  great  indus 
trial  and  producing  masses  of  the  people.  It  represented 
the  men  who  plow  and  plant,  who  fatten  herds,  who  toil 
in  shops,  who  fell  forests,  and  delve  in  mines.  But  are 
these  to  be  regarded  with  contumely  and  addressed  in 
terms  of  contempt?  Why,  sir,  these  are  the  men  who 
feed  and  clothe  the  nation ;  whose  products  make  up  the 
sum  of  our  exports ;  who  produce  the  wealth  of  the  re 
public  ;  who  bear  the  heaviest  burdens  in  times  of  peace ; 
who  are  ready  always  to  give  their  lifeblood  for  their 
country's  flag — in  short,  these  are  the  men  whose  sturdy 
arms  and  faithful  hands  uphold  the  stupendous  fabric  of 
our  civilization." 

Mr.  Bryan's  speech  of  acceptance  was  almost  entirely 
devoted  to  a  discussion  of  the  silver  question.  But  he 
could  not  ignore  the  charge,  which  had  then  become 
widespread  throughout  the  country,  that  his  party 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1896  189 

meditated  an  attack  upon  the  rights  of  property  and  was  , 
the  foe  of  social  order  and  national  honor.  He  repudi 
ated  the  idea  that  his  party  believed  that  equality  of  tal 
ents  and  wealth  could  be  produced  by  human  institutions  ; 
he  declared  his  belief  in  private  property  as  the  stimulus 
to  endeavor  and  compensation  for  toil ;  but  he  took  his 
stand  upon  the  principle  that  all  should  be  equal  before^ 
the  law.  Among  his  foes  he  discovered  ' '  those  who  find  a 
pecuniary  advantage  in  advocating  the  doctrines  of  non 
interference  when  great  aggregations  of  wealth  are  tres 
passing  upon  the  rights  of  individuals."  The  govern 
ment  should  enforce  the  laws  against  all  enemies  of  the 
public  weal,  not  only  the  highwayman  who  robs  the  un 
suspecting  traveler,  but  also  the  transgressors  who 
"  through  the  more  polite  and  less  hazardous  means  of 
legislation  appropriate  to  their  own  use  the  proceeds  of 
the  toil  of  others." 

In  his  opinion,  the  Democratic  ancome  tax  was  not 
based  upon  hostility  to  the  rich,  but  was  simply  designed 
to  apportion  the  burdens  of  government  more  equitably 
among  those  who  enjoyed  its  protection.  As  to  the 
matter  of  the  Supreme  Court,  there  was  no  suggestion 
in  the  platform  of  a  dispute  with  that  tribunal.  For  a 
hundred  years  the  Court  had  upheld  the  underlying 
principle  of  the  income  tax,  and  twenty  years  before 
"this  same  Court  sustained  without  a  dissenting  voice 
an  income  tax  law  almost  identical  with  the  one  recently 
overthrown."  The  platform  did  not  propose  an  attack 
on  the  Supreme  Court ;  some  future  Court  had  as  much 
right  "to  return  to  the  judicial  precedents  of  a  century 
as  the  present  Court  had  to  depart  from  them.  When 


igo     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

Courts  allow  rehearings  they  admit  that  error  is  possible ; 
the  late  decision  against  the  income  tax  was  rendered 
by  a  majority  of  one  after  a  rehearing." 

Discussing  the  monetary  question,  Mr.  Bryan  con 
fined  his  argument  to  a  few  principles  which  he  deemed 
fundamental.  He  disposed  of  international  bimetallism 
by  questioning  the  good  faith  of  those  who  advocated  it 
and  declaring  that  there  was  an  impassable  gulf  between 
a  universal  gold  standard  and  bimetallism,  whether 
independent  or  international,  „  He  rejected  the^proposi- 
tion  that  any  metal  represented  an  absolutely  just 
standard  of  value,  but  he  argued  that  bimetallism  was 
better  than  monometallism  because  it  made.- a.  nearer 
approach  to  stability,  honesty,  _and  justice _  thanji  gold 
standard  possibly  could._Any  legislation  lessening  the 
stock  of  standard  money  increased  the  purchasing  power 
of  money  and  lowered  the  monetary  value  of  all  other 
forms  of  property.  He  endeavored  to  show  the  ad 
vantages  to  be  derived  from  bimetallism  by  farmers, 
wage  earners,  and  the  professional  classes,  and  asked 
whether  the  mass  of  the  people  did  not  have  the  right  to 
use  the  ballot  to  protect  themselves  from  the  disastrous 
consequences  of  a  rising  standard,  particularly  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  the  relatively  few  whose  wealth  con 
sisted  largely  in  fixed  investments  had  not  hesitated 
to  use  the  ballot  to  enhance  the  value  of  their  invest 
ments. 

On  the  question  of  the  ratio,  sixteen  to  one,  Mr.  Bryan 
declared  that,  because  gold  and  silver  were  limited  in  the 
quantities  then  in  hand  and  in  annual  production, 
legislation  could  fix  the  ratio  between  them,  simply 


THE   CAMPAIGN  OF   1896  191 

following  the  law  of  supply  and  demand.  The  charge 
of  repudiation  he  met  with  an  argument  in  kind,  declar 
ing  it  to  come  "with  poor  grace  from  those  who  are  seek 
ing  to  add  to  the  weight  of  existing  debts  by  legislation 
which  makes  money  dearer,  and  who  conceal  their  de 
signs  against  the  general  welfare  under  the  euphonious 
pretense  that  they  are  upholding  public  credit  and 
national  honor."  He  concluded  with  a  warning  to  his 
hearers  that  they  could  not  afford  to  join  the  money 
changers  in  supporting  a  financial  policy  which  destroyed 
the  purchasing  power  of  the  product  of  toil  and  ended 
with  discouraging  the  creation  of  wealth. 

In  a  letter  of  acceptance  of  September  9,  1896,  Mr. 
Bryan  added  little  to  the  speeches  he  had  made  in  the 
convention  and  in  accepting  the  nomination.  He  at 
tacked  the  bond  policy  of  President  Cleveland  and  de 
clared  that  to  assert  that  "the  government  is  dependent 
upon  the  good  will  or  assistance  of  any  portion  of  the 
people  other  than  a  constitutional  majority  is  to  assert 
that  we  have  a  government  in  form  but  without  vital 
force."  Capital,  he  urged,  was  created  by  labor,  and 
"since  the  producers  of  wealth  create  the  nation's  pros 
perity  in  time  of  peace  and  defend  the  nation's  flag  in 
time  of  peril,  their  interests  ought  at  all  times  to  be  con 
sidered  by  those  who  stand  in  official  positions."  He 
criticized  the  abuses  in  injunction  proceedings  and 
favored  the  principle  of  trial  by  jury  in  such  cases.  He 
declared  that  it  was  not  necessary  to  discuss  the  tariff 
at  that  time  because  the  money  question  was  the  over 
shadowing  issue,  and  all  minor  matters  must  be  laid 
aside  in  favor  of  united  action  on  that  moot  point. 


192      CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

r  !U\,*H!  C *  n  Y&AA 

A  few  of  the  advocates  of  the  gold  standard  in  the 

Democratic  party,  who  could  not  accept  the  Chicago 
platform  and  were  yet  unwilling  to  go  over  to  the  Repub 
licans,  held  a  convention  at  Indianapolis  in  September, 
and  nominated  a  ticket,  headed  by  John  M.  Palmer  for 
President,  and  Simon  Buckner  for  Vice  President.  This 
party,  through  the  address  of  its  executive  committee 
calling  the  convention,  declared  that  Democrats  were 
absolved  from  all  obligations  to  support  the  Chicago 
platform  because  the  convention  had  departed  from  the 
recognized  Democratic  faith  and  had  announced  doc 
trines  which  were  "  destructive  of  national  honor  and 
private  obligation  and  tend  to  create  sectional  and  class 
distinctions  and  engender  discord  and  strife  among  the 
people."  The  address  repudiated  the  doctrine  of 
majority  rule  in  the  party,  declaring  that  when  a  Demo 
cratic  convention  departed  from  the  principles  of  the 
party,  no  Democrat  was  under  any  moral  obligation  to 
support  its  action. 

The  principles  of  the  party  which,  the  address  de 
clared,  had  been  adhered  to  from  Jefferson  to  Cleveland 
"without  variableness  or  a  shadow  of  turning"  were 
summed  up  in  a  policy  of  laissez  faire.  A  true  Demo 
crat,  ran  the  address,  "believes,  and  this  is  the  cardinal 
doctrine  of  his  political  faith,  in  the  ability  of  every 
individual  unassisted,  if  unfettered  by  law,  to  achieve 
his  own  happiness,  and  therefore  that  to  every  citizen 
there  should  be  secured  the  right  and  opportunity  peace 
ably  to  pursue  whatever  course  of  conduct  he  would, 
provided  such  conduct  deprived  no  other  individual  of 
the  equal  enjoyment  of  the  same  right  and  opportunity. 


THE   CAMPAIGN  OF   1896  193 

He  stood  for  freedom  of  speech,  freedom  of  conscience, 
freedom  of  trade,  and  freedom  of  contract,  all  of  which 
are  implied  by  the  century-old  battle  cry  of  the  Demo 
cratic  party  '  Individual  Liberty  ! '  .  .  .  Every  true 
Democrat  .  .  .  profoundly  disbelieves  in  the  ability  of 
the  government,  through  paternal  legislation,  or  super 
vision,  to  increase  the  happiness  of  the  nation." 

In  the  platform  adopted  at  the  convention,  the  "  Na 
tional  Democratic  party"  was  pledged  to  the  general 
principles  enunciated  in  the  address  and  went  on  record 
as  " opposed  to  all  paternalism  and  all  class  legislation." 
It  declared_that  the  Chicago  convention  had  attacked 
"  individual  freedom,  the  right  of  private  contract,  the 
independence  of~the~Jiio!iciary,  and  the  authority  of  the 
President  to  pnfnrrf  "FpH^ral  lawg.."  Tt  Hpnrmnred  pro 
tection  and  the  free  coinage  of  silver  as  two  schemes  de 
signed  for  the  personal  profit  of  the  few  at  the  expense  of 
the  masses ;  it  declared  in  Jaxor  nf  the  ftold  standard^ 
indorsed  President  Cleveland's  flHnifokixaJ^QnyjmdjBtpnt. 
to  jhe  support  of  the  Supreme  Tmirt  by  r.nriHemm'ng 
"_all  efforts  to  degrade  t.ha,t  trihnnal  or  to  impa1'1*  f^p  rf™- 
ndence-aad-rcspcct  which  it  has  deservedly  lield~ 

This  platform  received  the  support  of  President  Cleve 
land,  who,  in  response  to  an  invitation  to  attend  the  meet 
ing  at  which  the  candidates  were  to  be  notified,  said  :  "  As 
a  Democrat,  devoted  to  the  principles  and  integrity  of 
my  party,  I  should  be  delighted  to  be  present  on  an 
occasion  so  significant  and  to  mingle  with  those  who  are 
determined  that  the  voice  of  true  Democracy  shall  not 
be  smothered  and  who  insist  that  the  glorious  standard 
shall  be  borne  aloft  as  of  old  in  faithful  hands." 


194     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

In  their  acceptance  speeches,  Palmer  and  Buckner 
devoted  more  attention  to  condemning  the  Chicago 
platform  than  to  explaining  the  principles  for  which  they 
stood.  General  Buckner  said:  "The  Chicago  Conven 
tion  would  wipe  virtually  out  of  existence  the  Supreme 
Court  which  interprets  the  law,  forgetting  that  our  an 
cestors  in  England  fought  for  hundreds  of  years  to  ob 
tain  a  tribunal  of  justice  which  was  free  from  executive 
control.  They  would  wipe  that  out  of  existence  and 
subject  it  to  the  control  of  party  leaders  to  carry  out  the 
dictates  of  the  party  —  they  would  paralyze  the  arm  of 
the  general  government  and  forbid  the  powers  to  pro 
tect  the  lives  and  property  of  its  citizens.  That  con 
vention  in  terms  almost  placed  a  lighted  torch  in  the 
hands  of  the  incendiary  and  urged  the  mob  to  pro 
ceed  without  restraint  to  pillage  and  murder  at  their 
discretion." 

The  Campaign 

The  campaign  which  followed  the  conventions  was  the 
most  remarkable  in  the  long  history  of  our  quadrennial 
spectacles.  Terror  is  always  a  powerful  instrument  in 
politics,  and  it  was  never  used  with  greater  effect  than  in 
the  summer  and  autumn  of  1896.  Some  of  Mr.  Bryan's 
utterances,  particularly  on  the  income  tax,  frightened 
the  rich  into  believing,  or  pretending  to  believe,  that  his 
election  would  be  the  beginning  of  a  wholesale  confisca 
tion.  The  Republicans  replied  to  Mr.  Bryan's  threats 
by  using  the  greatest  of  all  terrors,  the  terror  of  unem 
ployment,  with  tremendous  effect.  Everywhere  they 


THE   CAMPAIGN  OF   1896  195 

let  the  country  understand  that  the  defeat  of  Mr.  Mc- 
Kinley  would  close  factories  and  throw  thousands  of 
workingmen  out  of  employment,  and  manufacturers  and 
railways  were  accused  by  Mr.  Bryan  of  exercising  coer 
cion  on  a  large  scale. 

To  this  terror  from  above,  the  Democrats  responded  by 
creating  terror  below,  by  stirring  deep-seated  class  feeling 
against  the  Republican  candidate  and  his  managers. 
In  a  letter  given  out  from  the  Democratic  headquarters 
in  Chicago,  on  September  12,  1896,  Mr.  Jones,  chairman 
of  the  Democratic  national  committee,  said:  " Against 
the  people  in  this  campaign  are  arrayed  the  consolidated 
forces  of  wealth  and  corporate  power.  The  classes  which 
have  grown  fat  by  reason  of  Federal  legislation  and  the 
single  gold  standard  have  combined  to  fasten  their  fetters 
still  more  firmly  upon  the  people  and  are  organizing  every 
precinct  of  every  county  of  every  state  in  the  Union  with 
this  purpose  in  view.  To  meet  and  defeat  this  corrupt 
and  unholy  alliance  the  people  themselves  must  organize 
and  be  organized.  ...  It  will  minimize  the  effect  of 
the  millions  of  dollars  that  are  being  used  against  us, 
and  defeat  those  influences  which  wealth  and  cor 
porate  power  are  endeavoring  to  use  to  override  the 
will  of  the  people  and  corrupt  the  integrity  of  free 
institutions." 

(Owing  to  the  nature  of  the  conflict  enormous  cam 
paign  funds  were  secured.  The  silver  miners  helped  to 
finance  Mr.  Bryan,  but  their  contributions  were  trivial 
compared  with  the  immense  sums  raised  by  Mr.  Hanna 
from  protected  interests,  bankers,  and  financiers.  With 
this  great  fund,  speakers  were  employed  by  the  thou- 


196     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

sands,  newspapers  were  subsidized,  party  literature  cir 
culated  by  the  ton,  whole  states  polled  in  advance, 
and  workers  employed  to  carry  the  Republican  fight 
into  every  important  precinct  in  the  country.  The 
God  of  battles  was  on  the  side  of  the  heaviest  battal 
ions.  With  all  the  most  powerful  engines  for  creating 
public  sentiment  against  him,  Mr.  Bryan,  in  spite 
of  his  tremendous  popular  appeal,  was  doomed  to 
defeat. 

Undoubtedly,  as  was  said  at  the  time,  most  of  the  lead 
ing  thinkers  in  finance  and  politics  were  against  Mr.  Bryan, 
and  if  there  is  anything  in  the  verdict  of  history,  the  sil 
ver  issue  could  not  stand  the  test  of  logic  and  understand 
ing.  But  it  must  not  be  presumed  that  it  was  merely  a 
battle  of  wits,  and  that  demagogic  appeals  to  passions 
which  were  supposed  to  be  associated  with  Mr.  Bryan's 
campaign  were  confined  to  his  partisans.  On  the  contrary, 
the  Republicans  employed  all  of  the  forms  of  personal 
vituperation.  For  example,  that  staid  journal  of  Repub 
licanism,  the  'New  York  Tribune,  attributed  the  growth 
of  Bryanism  to  the  "  assiduous  culture  of  the  basest 
passions  of  the  least  worthy  member  of  the  commun 
ity.  ...  Its  nominal  head  was  worthy  of  the  cause. 
Nominal  because  the  wretched,  rattle-pated  boy,  posing 
in  vapid  vanity  and  mouthing  resounding  rottenness,  was 
not  the  real  leader  of  that  league  of  hell.  He  was  only  a 
puppet  in  the  blood-imbued  hands  of  Altgeld,  the  anar 
chist,  and  Debs,  the  revolutionist,  and  other  desperadoes 
of  that  stripe.  But  he  was  a  willing  puppet,  Bryan  was, 
—  willing  and  eager.  None  of  his  masters  was  more  apt 
than  he  at  lies  and  forgeries  and  blasphemies  and  all  the 


THE   CAMPAIGN  OF   1896  197 

nameless  iniquities  of  that  campaign  against  the  Ten 
Commandments."  That  such  high  talk  by  those  who 
constituted  themselves  the  guardians  of  public  credit, 
patriotism,  and  the  Ten  Commandments  was  not  cal 
culated  to  sooth  the  angry  passions  of  their  opponents 
needs  no  demonstration  here. 

Argument,  party  organization  and  machinery,  the 
lavish  use  of  money,  and  terror  won  the  day  for  the 
Republicans.  The  solid  East  and  Middle  West  over 
whelmed  Mr.  Bryan,  giving  Mr.  McKinley  271  electoral 
votes  and  7,111,607  popular  votes,  as  against  176  electoral 
and  6,509,052  popular  votes  cast  for  the  Democratic 
candidate. 

The  decisive  defeat  of  Mr.  Bryan  put  an  end  to  the 
silver  issue  for  practical  purposes,  although,  as  we  shall 
see,  it  was  again  raised  in  1900.  The  Republicans,  how 
ever,  delayed  action  for  political  reasons,  and  it  was  not 
until  almost  four  years  had  elapsed  that  they  made  the 
gold  dollar  the  standard  by  an  act  of  Congress  approved 
on  March  4,  1900.  Thus  the  war  of  the  standards  was 
closed,  but  the  question  of  the  currency  was  not  settled, 
and  the  old  issue  of  inflation  and  contraction  continued 
to  haunt  the  paths  of  the  politicians.  From  time  to 
time,  the  prerogatives  of  the  national  banks,  organized 
under  the  law  of  1863  (modified  in  1901),  were  questioned 
in  political  circles,  and  in  1908  an  attempt  was  made  by 
act  of  Congress  to  give  the  currency  more  elasticity  by 
authorizing  the  banks  to  form  associations  and  issue 
notes  on  the  basis  of  certain  securities.  Nevertheless, 
no  serious  changes  were  made  in  the  financial  or  banking 


i98      CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

systems  before  the  close  of  the  year  1912.  The  atten 
tion  of  the  country,  shortly  after  the  campaign  of 
1896,  was  diverted  to  the  spectacular  events  of  the 
Spanish  War,  and  for  a  time  appeals  to  patriotism  sub 
dued  the  passions  of  the  radicals. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

IMPERIALISM 

THE  Republicans  triumphed  in  1896,  but  the  large 
vote  for  Mr.  Bryan  and  his  platform  and  the  passions 
aroused  by  the  campaign  made  it  clear  to  the  far-sighted 
that,  whatever  might  be  the  fate  of  free  silver,  new  social 
elements  had  entered  American  politics.  It  was  for 
tunate  for  the  conservative  interests  that  the  quarrel 
with  Spain  came  shortly  after  Mr.  McKinley's  election, 
and  they  were  able  to  employ  that  ancient  political  de 
vice,  "a  vigorous  foreign  policy,"  to  divert  the  public 
mind  from  domestic  difficulties.  This  was  particularly 
acceptable  to  the  populace  at  the  time,  for  there  had  been 
no  war  for  more  than  thirty  years,  and,  contrary  to  their 
assertions  on  formal  occasions,  the  American  pgople 
enjoy  wars  beyond  measure,  if  the  plain  facts  of  history 
are  allowed  to  speak.1 

Since  1876  there  had  been  no  very  spectacular  foreign 
affair  to  fix  the  attention  of  the  public  mind,  except  the 
furor  worked  up  over  the  application  of  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  to  Venezuela  during  President  Cleveland's 
second  administration.  For  a  long  time  that  country 
and  Great  Britain  had  been  waging  a  contest  over  the 
western  boundary  of  British  Guiana ;  and  the  United 
States,  on  the  appeal  of  Venezuela,  had  taken  a  slight 

1 J.  B.  Moore,  Four  Phases  of  American  Development,  p.  195. 
199 


200     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

interest  in  the  dispute,  generally  assuming  that  the  merits 
of  the  case  were  on  the  side  of  the  South  American  re 
public.  In  1895,  it  became  apparent  that  Great  Britain 
did  not  intend  to  yield  any  points  in  the  case,  and  Vene 
zuela  began  to  clamor  again  for  protection,  this  time  with 
effect.  In  July  of  that  year,  the  Secretary  of  State, 
Richard  Olney,  demanded  that  Great  Britain  answer 
whether  she  was  willing  to  arbitrate  the  question,  and 
announced  that  the  United  States  was  master  in  this 
hemisphere  by  saying  :  "The  United  States  is  practically 
sovereign  on  this  continent  and  its  fiat  is  law  upon  the 
subjects  to  which  it  confines  its  interposition.  Why? 
It  is  not  because  of  the  pure  friendship  or  good  will  felt 
for  it.  It  is  not  simply  by  reason  of  its  high  character 
as  a  civilized  state,  nor  because  wisdom  and  equity  are 
the  invariable  characteristics  of  the  dealings  of  the  United 
States.  It  is  because  in  addition  to  all  other  grounds,  its 
infinite  resources  combined  with  its  isolated  position 
render  it  master  of  the  situation  and  practically  invul 
nerable  against  any  or  all  other  powers." 

This  extraordinary  document,  to  put  it  mildly,  failed 
to  arouse  the  warlike  sentiment  in  England  which  its 
language  invited,  and  Lord  Salisbury  replied  for  the 
British  government  that  this  startling  extension  of  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  was  not  acceptable  in  the  present  con 
troversy  and  that  the  arbitration  of  the  question  could 
not  be  admitted  by  his  country.  This  moderate  reply 
brought  from  President  Cleveland  a  message  to  Congress 
on  December  17, 1895,  which  created  in  the  United  States 
at  least  all  the  outward  and  visible  signs  of  the  prelimi 
naries  to  a  war  over  the  matter.  He  asked  Congress  to 


IMPERIALISM  201 

create  a  commission  to  ascertain  the  true  boundary  be 
tween  Venezuela  and  British  Guiana,  and  then  added  that 
it  would  be  the  duty  of  the  United  States  "to  resist  by 
every  means  in  its  power,  as  a  wilful  aggression  upon  its 
rights 'and  interests,  the  appropriation  by  Great  Britain 
of  any  lands  or  the  exercise  of  governmental  jurisdiction 
over  any  territory  which,  after  investigation,  we  have 
determined  of  right  belongs  to  Venezuela."  He  declared 
that  he  was  conscious  of  the  responsibilities  which  he 
thus  incurred,  but  intimated  that  war  between  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States,  much  as  it  was  to  be  de 
plored,  was  not  comparable  to  "a  supine  submission  to 
wrong  and  injustice  and  the  consequent  loss  of  national 
self-respect  and  honor."  In  other  words,  we  were  to 
decide  the  dispute  ourselves  and  go  to  war  on  Great 
Britain  if  we  found  her  in  possession  of  lands  which  in 
our  opinion  did  not  belong  to  her. 

This  defiant  attitude  on  the  part  of  President  Cleve 
land,  while  it  aroused  a  wave  of  enthusiasm  among  those 
sections  of  the  population  moved  by  bold  talk  about 
the  unimpeachable  integrity  of  the  United  States  and 
its  daring  defense  of  right  everywhere,  called  forth  no 
little  criticism  in  high  places.  Contrary  to  expectation, 
it  was  not  met  by  bluster  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain, 
but  it  was  rather  deplored  there  as  threatening  a  breach 
between  the  two  countries  over  an  insignificant  matter. 
Moreover,  when  the  commission  created  by  Congress 
set  to  work  on  the  boundary  dispute,  the  British  govern 
ment  courteously  replied  favorably  to  a  request  for 
assistance  in  trie  search  for  evidence.  Finally,  Great 
Britain  yielded  and  agreed  to  the  earlier  proposition  on 


202     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

the  part  of  the  United  States  that  the  issue  be  submitted 
to  arbitration ;  and  this  happy  outcome  of  the  matter 
contributed  not  a  little  to  Mr.  Cleveland's  reputation 
as  "  a  sterling  representative  of  the  true  American  spirit." 
This  was  not  diminished  by  the  later  discovery  that 
Great  Britain  was  wholly  right  in  her  claims  in  South 
America. 

The  Venezuelan  controversy  was  an  echo  of  the  time- 
honored  Monroe  Doctrine  and  was  without  any  deeper 
economic  significance.  There  were  not  wanting,  how 
ever,  signs  that  the  United  States  was  prepared  econom 
ically  to  accept  that  type  of  imperialism  that  had 
long  been  dominant  in  British  politics  and  had  sprung 
into  prominence  in  Germany,  France,  and  Italy  during 
the  generation  following  the  Franco-Prussian  War. 
This  newer  imperialism  does  jiot  rest  primarily  upon  a 
desire  for  more  territory,  but  rather  upon  the  necessity 
;  for  markets  in  which  to  sell  manufactured  goods  and 
for  opportunities  to  invest  surplus  accumulations  of 
capital.® It  begins  in  a  search  for  trade,  advances  to 
intervention  on  behalf  of  the  interests  involved,  thence 
to  protectorates,1!  and  finally  to  annexation.  By  the 
inexorable  necessity  of  the  present  economic  system, 
markets  and  safe  investment  opportunities  must  be 
found  for  surplus  products  and  accumulated  capital. 
All  the  older  countries  being  overstocked  and  also  forced 
into  this  new  form  of  international  rivalry,  the  drift 
is  inevitably  in  the  direction  of  the  economically  back 
ward  countries :  Africa,  Asia,  Mexico,  and  South 
America.  Economic  necessity  thus  overrides  American 


IMPERIALISM  203 

isolation  and  drives  the  United  States  into  world 
politics. 

Although  the  United  States  had  not  neglected  the  pro 
tection  of  its  interests  from  the  clays  when  it  thrashed 
the  Barbary  pirates,  sent  Caleb  Gushing  to  demand  an 
open  door  in  China,  and  dispatched  Commodore  Perry 
to  batter  down  Japanese  exclusiveness,  the  relative 
importance  of  its  world  operations  was  slight  until  manu 
facturing  and  commerce  gained  their  ascendancy  over 
agriculture. 

The  pressure  of  the  newer  interests  on  American 
foreign  policy  had  already  been  felt  when  the  demand 
for  the  war  with  Spain  came.  In  1889,  the  United 
States  joined  with  Great  Britain  and  Germany  in  a 
protectorate  over  the  Samoan  Islands,  thus  departing, 
according  to  Secretary  Gresham,  from  our  "  traditional 
and  well-established  policy  of  avoiding  entangling  al 
liances  with  foreign  powers  in  relation  to  objects  remote 
from  this  hemisphere/' *  Preparations  had  been  made 
under  Harrison's  administration  for  the  annexation  of 
the  Hawaiian  Islands,  after  a  revolution,  largely  fomented 
by  American  interests  there,  had  overthrown  the  es 
tablished  government ;  but  this  movement  was  blocked 
for  the  time  being  by  President  Cleveland,  who  learned 
through  a  special  commissioner,  sent  to  investigate 
the  affair,  that  the  upheaval  had  been  due  principally 
to  American  disgust  for  the  weak  and  vacillating  govern 
ment  of  the  Queen.  It  was  not  until  the  middle  of  the 
Spanish  War  that  Congress,  recognizing  the  importance 

1  In  1899,  the  tripartite  arrangement  was  dissolved  and  the  United 
States  obtained  outright  possession  of  Tutuila. 


204     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

of  the  Hawaiian  Islands  in  view  of  the  probable  develop 
ments  resulting  from  Admiral  Dewey's  victory  in  the 
Philippines,  annexed  them  to  the  United  States  by  joint 
resolution  on  July  6,  1898.* 

The  Spanish  War 

It  required,  however,  the  Spanish  War  and  the  ac 
quisition  of  the  insular  dependencies  to  bring  imperial 
ism  directly  into  politics  as  an  overshadowing  issue  and 
to  secure  the  frank  acknowledgment  of  the  new  emphasis 
on  world  policy  which  economic  interests  demanded. 
It  is  true  that  Cuba  had  long  been  an  object  of  solicitude 
on  the  part  of  the  United  States.  Before  the  Civil 
War,  the  slave  power  was  anxious  to  secure  its  annexa 
tion  as  a  state  to  help  offset  the  growing  predominance 
of  the  North;  and  during  the  ten  years'  insurrection 
from  1868  to  1878,  when  a  cruel  guerilla  warfare  made  all 
•  life  and  property  in  Cuba  unsafe,  intervention  was  again 
suggested.  But  it  was  not  until  the  renewal  of  the  in 
surrection  in  1895  that  American  economic  interests  in 
Cuba  were  strong  enough  to  induce  interference.  Slav 
ery  was  gone,  but  capital,  still  more  dominant,  had 
taken  its  place. 

In  1895,  Americans  had  more  than  fifty  million  dollars 
invested  in  Cuban  business,  and  our  commerce  with  the 
Island  had  risen  to  one  hundred  millions  annually. 
The  effect  of  the  Cuban  revolt  against  Spain  was  not 

*The  Hawaiian  Islands  are  ruled  by  a  governor  appointed  by  the 
President  and  Senate  and  by  a  legislature  of  two  houses  elected  by  popular 
vote. 


IMPERIALISM  205 

only  to  diminish  trade,  but  also  to  destroy  American 
property.  The  contest  between  the  rebels  and  Spanish 
troops  was  characterized  by  extreme  cruelty  and  a  total 
disregard  for  life  and  property.  Gomez,  the  leader 
of  the  revolt,  resorted  to  the  policy  made  famous  by 
Sherman  on  his  march  to  the  sea.  He  laid  waste  the 
land  to  starve  the  Spaniards  and  compel  American  in 
terference  if  possible.  By  a  proclamation  of  November 
6,  1895,  he  ordered  that  plantation  buildings  and  rail 
way  connections  should  be  destroyed  and  sugar  factories 
closed  everywhere ;  what  he  left  undone  was  finished 
by  the  Spanish  general,  Weyler,  who  concentrated  the 
inhabitants  of  the  rural  districts  in  the  centers  occupied 
by  the  troops.  Under  such  a  policy,  business  was  simply 
paralyzed;  and  within  less  than  two  years  Americans 
had  filed  against  Spain  claims  amounting  to  sixteen 
million  dollars  for  property  destroyed  in  the  revo 
lution. 

The  atrocities  connected  .with  the  insurrection  at 
tracted  the  sympathy  of  the  American  people  at  once. 
Sermons  were  preached  against  Spanish  barbarism ; 
orators  demanded  that  the  Cuban  people  be  "  succored 
in  their  heroic  struggle  for  the  rights  of  men  and  of  citi 
zens";  Mr.  Hearst's  newspapers  appealed  daily  to  the 
people  to  compel  governmental  action  at  once,  and  de 
nounced  the  tedious  methods  of  negotiation,  in  view  of 
an  inevitable  war.  Cuban  juntas  formed  in  American 
cities  raised  money  and  supplied  arms  for  the  insurrec 
tionists.  All  the  enormous  American  property  in 
terests  at  stake  in  the  Island,  with  their  widespread  and 
influential  ramifications  in  the  United  States,  demanded 


206     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

action.  The  war  fever,  always  quick  to  be  kindled, 
rose  all  over  the  country. 

Even  amid  the  exciting  campaign  of  1896,  the  Demo 
crats  found  time  to  express  sympathy  with  the  Cubans, 
and  the  Republicans  significantly  remarked  that  inas 
much  as  Spain  was  "  unable  to  protect  the  property  or 
lives  of  resident  American  citizens,"  the  good  offices 
of  the  United  States  should  be  tendered  with  a  view  to 
pacification  and  independence.  Perhaps,  not  unaware 
of  the  impending  crisis,  the  Republicans  also  favored  a 
continued  enlargement  of  the  navy  to  help  maintain  the 
" rightful  influence"  of  the  United  States  among  the 
nations  of  the  earth. 

President  Cleveland,  repudiated  by  his  own  party 
and  having  no  desire  to  "play  the  game  of  politics," 
assumed  an  attitude  of  neutrality  in  the  conflict  and 
denied  to  the  Cubans  the  rights  of  belligerents.  He 
offered  to  Spain  the  good  offices  of  the  United  States 
in  mediation  with  the  insurgents  —  a  tender  which 
was  rejected  by  Spain  with  the  suggestion  that  the 
United  States  might  more  vigorously  suppress  the  un 
lawful  assistance  which  some  of  its  citizens  were  lending 
to  the  revolutionists.  Mr.  Cleveland's  second  adminis 
tration  closed  without  any  positive  action  on  the  Cuban 
question. 

Within  four  months  after  his  inauguration,  President 
McKinley  protested  strongly  to  Spain  against  her 
policy  in  Cuba,  and  during  the  summer  and  autumn 
and  winter  he  conducted  a  running  fire  of  negotiations 
with  Spain.  Congress  was  impatient  for  armed  inter 
vention  and  fretted  at  the  tedious  methods  of  diplomacy. 


IMPERIALISM  207 

Spain  shrewdly  made  counter  thrusts  to  every  demand 
advanced  by  the  United  States,  but  made  no  outward 
sign  of  improvement  in  the  affairs  of  Cuba,  even  after 
the  recall  of  General  Weyler.  In  February,  1898,  a 
private  letter,  written  by  De  Lome,  the  Spanish  minister 
at  Washington,  showing  contempt  for  Mr.  McKinley 
and  some  shifty  ideas  of  diplomacy,  was  acquired  by 
the  New  York  Journal  and  published.  This  stirred  the 
country  and  led  to  the  recall  of  the  minister  by  his  home 
government.  Meanwhile  the  battleship  Maine  was  sent 
to  Havana,  officially  to  resume  friendly  relations  at 
Cuban  ports,  but  not  without  an  ulterior  regard  for  the 
necessity  of  protecting  the  lives  and  property  of  Ameri 
cans  in  jeopardy.  The  incident  of  the  Spanish  minis 
ter's  letter  had  hardly  been  closed  before  the  Maine 
was  blown  up  and  sunk  on  the  evening  of  February  15, 
1898.  The  death  of  two  officers  and  two  hundred  and 
fifty-eight  of  the  crew  was  a  tragedy  which  moved  the 
nation  beyond  measure,  and  with  the  cry  "  Remember 
the  Maine"  public  opinion  was  worked  up  to  a  point 
of  frenzy. 

A  commission  was  appointed  at  once  to  inquire  into 
the  cause  of  the  disaster,  and  on  March  21  it  reported 
that  the  Maine  had  been  destroyed  by  an  explosion  of 
a  submarine  mine  which  set  off  some  of  the  ship's 
magazines.  Within  a  week,  negotiations  with  Spain 
were  resumed,  and  that  country  made  generous  promises 
to  restore  peace  in  the  Island  and  permit  a  Cuban 
parliament  to  be  established  in  the  interests  of  local 
autonomy.  None  of  Spain's  promises  were  regarded  as 
satisfactory  by  the  administration,  and  on  April  4, 


208     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

General  Woodford,  the  American  representative  in  that 
country,  was  instructed  to  warn  the  ministry  that  no 
effective  armistice  had  been  offered  the  Cubans  and 
that  President  McKinley  would  shortly  lay  the  matter 
before  Congress  —  which  meant  war.  After  some  delay, 
during  which  representatives  of  the  European  powers 
and  the  Pope  were  at  work  in  the  interests  of  peace, 
Spain  promised  to  suspend  hostilities,  call  a  Cuban 
parliament,  and  restore  a  reasonable  autonomy. 

On  the  day  after  the  receipt  of  this  promise,  Presi 
dent  McKinley  sent  his  war  message  to  Congress  with 
out  explaining  fully  the  latest  concessions  made  by 
Spain.  It  was  claimed  by  the  Spanish  government  that 
it  had  yielded  absolutely  everything  short  of  independ 
ence  and  that  all  of  the  demands  of  the  United  States 
had  been  met.  Some  eminent  editors  and  publicists 
in  the  United  States  have  since  accepted  this  view  of  the 
affair  and  sharply  criticized  the  President  for  not  making 
public  the  full  text  of  Spain's  last  concession  on  the  day 
that  he  sent  his  war  message  to  Congress.  Those  who 
take  this  view  hold  that  President  McKinley  believed 
war  to  be  inevitable  and  desirable  all  along,  but  merely 
wished  to  bring  public  opinion  to  the  breaking  point 
before  shifting  the  responsibility  to  Congress.  The 
President's  defenders,  however,  claim  that  no  credence 
could  be  placed  in  the  good  faith  of  Spain  and  that  the 
intolerable  conditions  in  Cuba  would  never  have  been 
removed  under  Spanish  administration,  no  matter 
what  promises  might  have  been  made. 

In  his  war  message  of  April  n,  1898,  Mr.  McKinley 
brought  under  review  the  conditions  in  Cuba  and  the 


IMPERIALISM  209 

history  of  the  controversy,  coming  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  dictates  of  humanity,  the  necessity  of  protect 
ing  American  lives  and  property  in  Cuba,  and  the  chronic 
disorders  in  the  Island  warranted  armed  intervention. 
Congress  responded  by  an  overwhelming  vote  on  April 
19,  in  favor  of  a  resolution  declaring  that  Cuba  should 
be  free,  that  Spain's  withdrawal  should  be  demanded, 
and  the  President  be  authorized  to  use  the  military 
and  naval  forces  of  the  country  to  carry  the  decree  into 
effect.  In  the  enthusiasm  of  the  hour,  Congress  also 
specifically  disclaimed  any  intention  of  exercising  "  sov 
ereignty,  jurisdiction,  or  control  over  said  Island  except 
for  the  pacification  thereof."  Thus  war  was  declared 
on  the  anniversary  of  the  battle  of  Lexington. 

In  the  armed  conflict  which  followed,  the  most  strik 
ing  and  effective  operations  were  on  the  sea.  In  antic 
ipation  of  the  war,  Commodore  Dewey,  in  command 
of  the  Asiatic  station,  had  been  instructed  as  early  as 
February  to  keep  his  squadron  at  Hongkong,  coaled, 
and  ready,  in  event  of  a  declaration  of  hostilities,  to 
begin  offensive  operations  in  the  Philippine  Islands. 
The  battleship  Oregon,  then  off  the  coast  of  Washington, 
was  ordered  to  make  the  long  voyage  around  the  Horn, 
which  has  now  become  famous  in  the  annals  of  the  sea. 
At  the  outbreak  of  the  war,  Rear  Admiral  Sampson,  in 
charge  of  the  main  squadron  at  Key  West,  was  instructed 
to  blockade  important  stretches  of  the  coast  of  Cuba 
and  to  keep  watch  for  the  arrival  of  the  Spanish  fleet, 
under  Admiral  Cervera,  which  was  then  on  the  high 
seas,  presumably  bound  for  Cuba. 

The  first  naval  blow  was  struck  by  Admiral  Dewey, 


210     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

who  had  left  Chinese  waters  on  receiving  news  of  the 
declaration  of  war  and  had  reached  Manila  Bay  on  the 
evening  of  April  30.  Early  the  following  morning  he 
opened  fire  on  the  inferior  Spanish  fleet  under  the  guns 
of  Cavite  and  Manila,  and  within  a  few  hours  he  had 
destroyed  the  enemy's  ships,  killed  nearly  four  hundred 
men,  and  silenced  the  shore  batteries  without  sustaining 
the  loss  of  a  single  man  or  suffering  any  injuries  to  his 
own  ships  worthy  of  mention.  News  of  this  extraordi 
nary  exploit  reached  the  United  States  by  way  of  Hong 
kong  on  May  6,  and  the  hero  of  the  day  was,  by  popu 
lar  acclaim,  placed  among  the  immortals  of  our  naval 
history. 

While  celebrating  the  victory  off  Manila,  the  govern 
ment  was  anxiously  awaiting  the  arrival  of  the  Spanish 
fleet  in  American  waters  which  were  being  carefully 
patrolled.  In  spite  of  the  precautions  of  Admiral 
Sampson,  Cervera  was  able  to  slip  into  the  harbor  of 
Santiago  on  May  19,  where  he  was  immediately  block 
aded  by  the  American  naval  forces.  An  attempt  was 
made  to  stop  up  the  mouth  of  the  harbor  by  sending 
Lieutenant  Richmond  P.  Hobson  to  sink  a  collier  at 
the  narrow  entrance,  but  this  spectacular  move,  carried 
out  under  a  galling  fire,  failed  to  accomplish  the  pur 
pose  of  the  projectors,  and  Hobson  and  his  men  fell  into 
the  hands  of  the  Spaniards. 

The  time  had  now  come  for  bringing  the  land  forces 
into  cooperation  with  the  navy  for  a  combined  attack 
on  Santiago,  and  on  June  14  a  large  body  of  troops, 
principally  regulars,  embarked  from  Tampa,  where 
men  and  supplies  had  been  concentrating  for  weeks. 


IMPERIALISM  2ii 

The  management  of  the  army  was  in  every  respect  in 
ferior  to  the  administration  of  the  navy.  Secretary 
Alger,  of  the  War  Department,  was  a  politician  of  the 
old  school,  who  could  not  allow  efficiency  to  interfere 
with  the  " proper"  distribution  of  patronage;  and  as  a 
result  of  his  dilatory  methods  (to  put  it  mildly)  and  the 
general  unpreparedness  of  the  army,  the  camp  at  Tampa 
was  grossly  mismanaged.  Sanitary  conveniences  were 
indescribably  bad,  supply  contractors  sold  decayed 
meat  and  wretched  food  to  the  government,  heavy  win 
ter  clothing  was  furnished  to  men  about  to  fight  in  the 
summer  time  in  a  tropical  climate,  and,  to  cap  the  climax 
of  blundering,  inadequate  provisions  were  made  for 
landing  the  troops  when  they  reached  Cuba  on  June  22. 

The  forces  dispatched  to  Cuba  were  placed  under 
the  command  of  General  Shafter,  but  owing  to  his 
illness  the  fighting  was  principally  carried  on  under 
Generals  Lawton  and  Wheeler.  The  most  serious  con 
flicts  in  the  land  campaign  occurred  at  El  Caney  and 
San  Juan  Hill,  both  strategic  points  near  Santiago.  At 
the  second  of  these  places  the  famous  "Rough  Riders" 
under  Colonel  Roosevelt  distinguished  themselves  by  a 
charge  up  the  hill  under  heavy  fire  and  by  being  the 
first  to  reach  the  enemy's  intrenchments.  In  spite 
of  several  engagements,  in  which  the  fortunes  of  the  day 
were  generally  on  the  side  of  the  Americans,  sickness 
among  the  soldiers  and  lack  of  supplies  caused  General 
Shafter  to  cable,  on  July  3,  that  without  additional 
support  he  could  not  undertake  a  successful  storming  of 
Santiago. 

At  this  critical  juncture,  the  naval  forces  once  more 


212      CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

distinguished  themselves,  and  made  further  bloody 
fighting  on  land  unnecessary,  by  destroying  Cervera's 
fleet  which  attempted  to  make  its  escape  from  the 
Santiago  harbor  on  the  morning  of  July  3.  The  Ameri 
can  ships  were  then  in  charge  of  Commodore  Schley, 
for  Admiral  Sampson  had  left  watch  early  that  morn 
ing  for  a  conference  with  General  Shaf ter ;  and  the 
sailors  acquitted  themselves  with  the  same  skill  that 
marked  Dewey's  victory  at  Manila.  Within  less  than 
four  hours'  fighting  all  the  Spanish  ships  were  destroyed 
or  captured  with  a  loss  of  about  six  hundred  killed  and 
wounded,  while  the  Americans  sustained  a  loss  of  only 
one  man  killed  and  one  wounded.  This  victory,  of 
course,  marked  the  doom  of  Santiago,  although  it  did 
not  surrender  formally  until  July  17,  after  two  days' 
bombardment  by  the  American  ships. 

The  fall  of  Santiago  ended  military  operations  in 
Cuba,  and  General  Miles,  who  had  come  to  the  front 
in  time  to  assist  General  Shafter  in  arranging  the  terms 
of  the  surrender  of  Santiago,  proceeded  at  once  to  Porto 
Rico.  He  was  rapidly  gaining  possession  of  that  Island 
in  an  almost  bloodless  campaign  when  news  came  of 
the  signing  of  the  peace  protocol  on  August  12.  Un 
fortunately  it  required  longer  to  convey  the  information 
to  the  Philippines  that  the  war  was  at  an  end,  and  on 
the  day  after  the  signature  of  the  protocol,  that  is,  August 
13,  General  Merritt  and  Admiral  Dewey  carried  Manila 
by  storm. 

As  early  as  July  26,  1898,  the  Spanish  government 
approached  President  McKinley  through  M.  Cambon, 
the  French  ambassador  at  Washington,  and  asked  for 


IMPERIALISM  213 

a  preliminary  statement  of  the  terms  on  which  the  war 
could  be  brought  to  a  close.  After  some  skirmishing, 
in  which  Spain  reluctantly  yielded  to  the  American 
ultimatum,  a  peace  protocol  was  signed  on  August  12, 
to  the  effect  that  Cuba  should  be  independent,  Porto 
Rico  ceded  to  the  United  States,  and  Manila  occupied 
pending  the  final  negotiations,  which  were  opened  at 
Paris  by  special  commissioners  on  October  i. 

When  the  commissioners  met  according  to  arrange 
ments,  the  government  of  the  United  States  apparently 
had  not  come  to  a  conclusion  as  to  the  final  disposition 
of  the  Philippines.  The  administration  was  anxious 
not  to  go  too  far  in  advance  of  public  opinion,  at  least 
so  far  as  official  pronunciamento  was  concerned,  although 
powerful  commercial  interests  were  busy  impressing 
the  public  mind  with  the  advantages  to  be  derived 
from  the  retention  of  the  distant  Pacific  Islands.  In 
his  instructions  to  the  peace  commissioners,  on  the  eve 
of  their  departure,  Mr.  McKinley,  while  denying  that 
there  had  originally  been  any  intention  of  conquest  in 
the  Pacific,  declared  that  the  march  of  events  had  im 
posed  new  duties  upon  us,  and  added:  " Incidental  to 
our  tenure  in  the  Philippines  is  the  commercial  oppor 
tunity  to  which  American  statesmanship  cannot  be 
indifferent.  It  is  just  to  use  every  legitimate  means  for 
the  enlargement  of  American  trade."  While  stating 
that  the  possession  of  territory  was  less  important  than 
an  "open  door"  for  trade  purposes,  he  concluded  by 
instructing  the  commissioners  that  the  United  States 
could  not  "  accept  less  than  the  cession  in  full  right  and 
sovereignty  of  the  Island  of  Luzon." 


2i4     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

The  peace  commissioners  were  divided  among  them 
selves  as  to  the  policy  to  be  pursued  with  regard  to  the 
Philippines;  but  in  the  latter  part  of  October  they  re 
ceived  definite  instructions  from  the  Secretary  of  State, 
Mr.  John  Hay,  that  the  cession  of  Luzon  alone  could 
not  be  justified  "  on  political,  commercial,  or  humani 
tarian  grounds,"  and  that  the  entire  archipelago  must 
be  surrendered  by  Spain.  The  Spanish  commissioners 
protested  vigorously  against  this  demand,  on  the  theory 
that  it  was  outside  of  the  terms  of  the  peace  protocol, 
but  they  were  forced  to  yield,  receiving  as  a  sort  of  conso 
lation  prize  the  payment  of  twenty  million  dollars  in 
compensation  for  the  loss. 

The  final  treaty,  as  signed  on  December  10,  1898,  em 
bodied  the  following  terms :  the  independence  of  Cuba, 
the  cession  of  Porto  Rico,  Guam,  and  the  Philippines 
to  the  United  States,  the  cancellation  of  the  claims  of 
the  citizens  of  the  two  countries  against  each  other, 
the  United  States  undertaking  to  settle  the  claims  of 
its  citizens  against  Spain,  the  payment  of  twenty  mil 
lion  dollars  for  the  Philippines  by  the  United  States, 
and  the  determination  of  the  civil  and  political  status 
of  the  inhabitants  of  the  ceded  territories  by  Congress. 

When  the  treaty  of  peace  was  published,  the  contest 
over  the  retention  of  the  Philippines  took  on  new  bit 
terness  —  at  least  in  public  speeches  and  editorials. 
The  contentions  on  both  sides  were  so  vehement  that  it 
was  almost  impossible  to  secure  any  frank  discussion 
of  the  main  issue:  "Does  the  United  States  want  a 
foothold  in  the  Pacific  in  order  to  secure  the  trade  of  the 
Philippines  and  afford  American  capital  an  opportunity 


IMPERIALISM  215 

to  develop  the  dormant  natural  resources,  and  in  order 
also  to  have  a  station  from  which  to  give  American  trade 
and  capital  a  better  chance  in  the  awakening  Orient?" 
Democrats  demanded  self-government  for  the  Philip 
pines,  "in  recognition  of  the  principles  of  the  immortal 
Declaration  of  Independence."  Republicans  talked  in 
lofty  strains  about  "the  mysterious  hand  of  Providence 
which  laid  this  burden  upon  the  Anglo-Saxon  race." 

The  proposal  to  retain  the  Philippines,  in  fact,  gave 
the  southern  statesmen  just  the  opportunity  they  had 
long  wanted  to  taunt  the  Republicans  with  insincerity 
on  the  race  question.  "Republican  leaders,"  said 
Senator  Tillman,  "do  not  longer  dare  to  call  into  ques 
tion  the  justice  or  necessity  of  limiting  negro  suffrage 
in  the  South."  And  on  another  occasion  he  exclaimed 
in  querulous  accents :  "I  want  to  call  your  attention  to 
the  remarkable  change  that  has  come  over  the  spirit 
of  the  dream  of  the  Republicans.  Your  slogans  of  the 
past  —  brotherhood  of  man  and  fatherhood  of  God  - 
have  gone  glimmering  down  through  the  ages.  The 
brotherhood  of  man  exists  no  longer."  To  such  asser 
tions,  Republicans  of  the  old  school,  like  Senator  Hoar, 
opposed  to  imperialism,  replied  sadly,  "The  statements 
of  Mr.  Tillman  have  never  been  challenged  and  never 
can  be."  But  Republicans  of  the  new  school,  unvexed 
by  charges  of  inconsistency,  replied  that  high  talk  about 
the  rights  of  man  and  of  self-government  came  with  poor 
grace  from  southern  Democrats  who  had  disfranchised 
millions  of  negroes  that  were  just  as  capable  of  self- 
government  as  the  bulk  of  the  natives  in  the  Philippines. 

Senator  Vest,  on  December  6,  introduced  in  the  Senate 


216     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

a  resolution  to  the  "effect  "that  under  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  no  power  is  given  to  the  Federal 
Government  to  acquire  territory  to  be  held  and  governed 
permanently  as  colonies."  He  was  ably  supported  by 
Senator  Hoar,  from  Massachusetts,  who  took  his  stand 
upon  the  proposition  that  "governments  derive  their 
just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed."  On 
the  other  side,  Senator  0.  H.  Platt,  of  Connecticut, 
expounded  the  gospel  of  manifest  destiny:  "Every 
expansion  of  our  territory  has  been  in  accordance  with 
the  irresistible  law  of  growth.  We  could  no  more  resist 
the  successive  expansions  by  which  we  have  grown  to 
be  the  strongest  nation  on  earth  than  a  tree  can  resist 
its  growth.  The  history  of  territorial  expansion  is 
the  history  of  our  nation's  progress  and  glory.  It  is  a 
matter  to  be  proud  of,  not  to  lament.  We  should  rejoice 
that  Providence  has  given  us  the  opportunity  to  extend 
our  influence,  our  institutions,  and  our  civilization  into 
regions  hitherto  closed  to  us,  rather  than  contrive  how 
we  can  thwart  its  designs." 

At  length  on  February  6,  1899,  the  treaty  was  ratified 
by  the  Senate,  but  it  must  not  be  assumed  that  all  of 
the  Senators  who  voted  for  the  ratification  of  the  treaty 
favored  embarking  upon  a  policy  of  "imperialism." 
Indeed,  at  the  time  of  the  approval  of  the  treaty,  a 
resolution  was  passed  by  the  Senate  to  the  effect  that 
the  policy  to  be  adopted  in  the  Philippines  was  still 
an  open  question ;  but  the  outbreak  of  an  insurrection 
there  led  to  an  immediate  employment  of  military  rule 
in  the  Islands  and  criticism  was  silenced  by  the  cry 
that  our  national  honor  was  at  stake. 


IMPERIALISM  217 

The  revolt  against  American  dominion  might  have 
been  foreseen,  for  the  conduct  of  Generals  Anderson 
and  Merritt  at  Manila  had  invited  trouble.  For  a 
long  time  before  the  War,  native  Filipinos  had  openly 
resisted  Spanish  rule,  and  particularly  the  dominance 
of  the  monks  and  priests,  who  held  an  enormous  amount 
of  land  and  managed  civil  as  well  as  ecclesiastical  affairs. 
Just  before  the  outbreak  of  the  Spanish  War,  there 
had  been  a  revolt  under  the  leadership  of  Aguinaldo 
which  had  been  brought  to  an  end  by  the  promise  to  pay 
a  large  sum  to  the  revolutionary  leaders  and  to  intro 
duce  extensive  administrative  reforms.  The  promises, 
however,  had  not  been  carried  out,  and  Admiral  Dewey 
had  invited  the  cooperation  of  Aguinaldo  and  his  in 
surgents  in  the  attack  on  Manila.  When  the  land  assault 
was  made  on  the  city,  in  August,  Aguinaldo  joined  with 
a  large  insurgent  army  under  the  banner  of  the  Filipino 
republic  which  had  been  proclaimed  in  July,  but  he  was 
compelled  to  take  a  subordinate  position,  and  received 
scant  respect  from  the  American  commanders,  who 
gave  him  to  understand  that  he  had  no  status  in  the 
war  or  the  settlement  of  the  terms  of  capitulation. 

As  may  be  imagined,  Aguinaldo  was  in  no  happy  frame 
of  mind  when  the  news  came  in  January,  1899,  tjiat  the 
United  States  had  assumed  sovereignty  over  the  islands ; 
but  it  is  not  clear  that  some  satisfactory  adjustment 
might  not  have  been  made  then,  if  the  United  States 
had  been  willing  to  accept  a  sort  of  protectorate  and 
allow  the  revolutionaries  to  establish  a  local  govern 
ment  of  their  own.  However,  little  or  nothing  was 
done  to  reach  a  peaceful  adjustment,  and  on  February 


2i8     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN   HISTORY 

4,  some  Filipino  soldiers  were  shot  by  American  troops 
for  refusing  to  obey  an  order  to  halt,  on  approaching 
the  American  lines.  This  untoward  incident  precipi 
tated  the  conflict  which  began  with  some  serious  regu 
lar  fighting  and  dwindled  into  a  vexatious  guerilla  war 
fare,  lasting  three  years  and  costing  the  United  States 
heavily  in  men  and  money.  Inhuman  atrocities  were 
committed  on  both  sides,  resembling  in  brutality  the 
cruel  deeds  which  had  marked  frontier  warfare  with 
the  Indians.  Reports  of  these  gruesome  barbarities 
reached  the  United  States  and  aroused  the  most  severe 
criticism  of  the  administration,  not  only  from  the  oppo 
nents  of  imperialism,  but  also  from  those  supporters  of 
the  policy,  who  imagined  that  it  could  be  carried  out 
with  rose  water. 

The  acquisition  of  the  insular  dependencies  raised 
again  the  old  problem  as  to  the  power  of  Congress 
over  territories,  which  had  been  so  extensively  debated 
during  the  slavery  conflict.  The  question  now  took 
the  form:  "Does  the  Constitution  restrict  Congress  in 
the  government  of  the  Islands  as  if  they  were  physically 
and  politically  a  part  of  the  United  States,  and  partic 
ularly,  do  the  limitations  in  behalf  of  private  rights, 
freedom  of  press,  trial  by  jury,  and  the  like,  embodied 
in  the  first  ten  Amendments,  control  the  power  of 
Congress?"  Strict  constitutionalists  answered  this 
question  in  the  affirmative  without  hesitation,  citing 
the  long  line  of  constitutional  decisions  which  had  re 
peatedly  affirmed  the  doctrine  that  Congress  is  limited 
everywhere,  even  in  the  territories  by  the  Amendments 


IMPERIALISM  219 

providing  for  the  protection  of  personal  and  property 
rights ;  but  practical  politicians,  supporting  the  McKin- 
ley  administration,  frankly  asserted  that  the  Constitution 
and  laws  of  the  United  States  did  not  of  their  own  force 
apply  in  the  territories  and  could  not  apply  until  Con 
gress  had  expressly  extended  them  to  the  insular  pos 
sessions. 

The  abstract  question  was  given  concrete  form  in 
several  decisions  by  the  Supreme  Court,  known  as  "the 
Insular  Cases."  The  question  was  speedily  raised 
whether  importers  of  commodities  from  Porto  Rico 
should  be  compelled  to  pay  the  duties  prescribed  by 
the  Dingley  act,  and  the  Court  answered  in  the  case 
of  De  Lima  v.  Bidwell  in  1901  that  the  Island  was 
"domestic"  within  the  meaning  of  the  tariff  act  and 
that  the  duties  could  not  be  collected.  In  the  course 
of  his  remarks,  the  Justice,  who  wrote  the  opinion,  said 
that  territory  was  either  domestic  or  foreign,  and  that 
the  Constitution  did  not  recognize  any  halfway  posi 
tion.  Four  Justices  dissented,  however  ;  and  American 
interests,  fearing  this  new  competition,  had  dissented  in 
advance,  —  so  vigorously,  in  fact,  that  Congress  during 
the  previous  year  had  passed  the  Foraker  act  imposing 
a  tariff  on  goods  coming  into  the  United  States  from 
Porto  Rico  and  vice  versa. 

This  concession  to  the  protected  interests  placed  the 
Supreme  Court  in  a  dilemma.  If  Porto  Rico  was 
domestic  territory,  —  a  part  of  the  United  States,  — 
was  not  the  Foraker  act  a  violation  of  the  constitutional 
provision  that  duties,  imposts,  and  excises  shall  be 
uniform  throughout  the  United  States?  This  question 


220     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

was  judicially  answered  by  the  Court  in  the  case  of 
Downes  v.  Bidwell,  decided  on  May  27,  1901,  which 
upheld  the  Foraker  act  on  grounds  so  various  that  the 
only  real  point  made  by  the  Court  was  that  the  law  was 
constitutional.  None  of  the  four  justices  who  concurred 
with  Justice  Brown  in  the  opinion  agreed  with  his 
reasoning,  and  the  four  judges,  who  dissented  entirely 
from  the  decision  and  the  opinion,  vigorously  denied 
that  there  could  be  any  territory  under  the  flag  of  the 
United  States  which  was  not  subject  to  the  limitations 
of  the  Constitution. 

In  other  cases  involving  freedom  of  the  press  in  the 
Philippines  and  trial  by  jury  in  the  Hawaiian  Islands, 
the  Supreme  Court  upheld  the  doctrine  that  Congress, 
in  legislating  for  the  new  dependencies,  was  not  bound 
by  all  those  constitutional  limitations  which  had  been 
hitherto  applied  in  the  continental  territories  of  the 
United  States.  The  upshot  of  all  these  insular  decisions 
is  that  the  Constitution  may  be  divided  into  two  parts, 
" fundamental"  and  " formal";  that  only  the  funda 
mental  parts  control  the  Federal  authorities  in  the  gov 
ernment  of  the  dependencies;  and  that  the  Supreme 
Court  will  decide,  from  time  to  time  as  specific  cases 
arise,  what  parts  of  the  Federal  Constitution  are  "  funda 
mental"  and  what  parts  are  merely  " formal."  In  two 
cases,  the  Court  has  gone  so  far  as  to  hold  that  indict 
ment  by  grand  jury  and  trial  by  petit  jury  with  unani 
mous  verdict  are  not  "fundamental"  parts  of  the  Con 
stitution,  "but  merely  concern  a  method  of  procedure." 
In  other  words,  the  practical  necessities  of  governing 
subject  races  of  different  origins  and  legal  traditions 


IMPERIALISM  221 

forced  that  eminent  tribunal  to  resort  to  painful  reason 
ing  in  an  effort  not  to  hamper  unduly  the  power  of 
Congress  by  constitutional  limitations. 

In  the  settlement  which  followed  the  Spanish  War, 
three  general  problems  were  presented.  In  the  first 
place,  our  relations  to  Cuba  required  definition.  It  is 
true  that  in  the  declaration  of  war  on  Spain  Congress 
had  disclaimed  "any  disposition  or  intention  to  exer 
cise  sovereignty,  jurisdiction,  or  control  over  said  Is 
land  except  for  the  pacification  thereof,  and  asserts 
its  determination  when  that  is  accomplished/7  to  leave 
the  government  and  control  of  the  Island  to  its  people"  ; 
but  American  economic  interests  in  the  Island  were 
too  great  to  admit  of  the  actual  fulfillment  of  this  prom 
ise.  Consequently,  Cuba  was  forced  to  accept,  as  a 
part  of  her  constitution,  several  provisions,  known  as 
the  Platt  amendment,  adopted  by  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  on  March  2,  1901,  restricting  her  rela 
tions  with  foreign  countries,  limiting  her  debt-creating 
power,  securing  the  right  of  the  United  States  to  inter 
vene  whenever  necessary  to  protect  life  and  property, 
and  reserving  to  the  United  States  the  right  to  acquire 
coaling  stations  at  certain  points  on  the  Island  to  be 
agreed  upon. 

Under  the  constitution,  to  which  the  Platt  reserva 
tions  on  behalf  of  the  United  States  were  attached,  the 
Cubans  held  a  general  election  in  December,  1901, 
choosing  a  president  and  legislature ;  and  in  the  spring 
of  the  following  year  American  troops  were  withdrawn, 
leaving  the  administration  in  the  hands  of  the  natives. 


222      CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

It  was  not  long,  however,  before  domestic  difficulties 
began  to  disturb  the  peace  of  the  Island,  and  in  the  sum 
mer  of  1906  it  was  reported  that  the  government  of 
President  Palma  was  about  to  be  overthrown  by  an  in 
surrection.  Under  the  circumstances,  Palma  resigned, 
and  the  Cuban  congress  was  unable  to  secure  a  quorum 
for  the  transaction  of  business.  After  due  warning, 
President  Roosevelt  intervened,  under  the  provisions 
of  the  Platt  amendment,  and  instituted  a  temporary 
government  supported  by  American  troops.  American 
occupation  of  the  Island  continued  for  a  few  months, 
but  finally  the  soldiers  were  withdrawn  and  native 
government  was  once  more  put  on  trial. 

The  second  problem  was  presented  by  Porto  Rico, 
where  military  rule  was  put  into  force  after  the  occupa 
tion  in  1898.  At  length,  on  May  i,  1900,  an  "  organic 
act,"  instituting  civil  government  in  that  Island,  was 
approved  by  the  President.  This  law  did  not  confer 
citizenship  on  the  Porto  Ricans,  but  assured  them  of 
the  protection  of  the  United  States.  It  set  up  a  gov 
ernment  embracing  a  governor,  appointed  by  the  Presi 
dent  and  Senate  of  the  United  States,  six  executive 
secretaries  appointed  in  the  same  manner  as  the  governor, 
and  a  legislature  of  two  houses  —  one  composed  of  the 
six  secretaries  and  five  other  persons  selected  by  the 
President  and  Senate,  acting  as  the  upper  house,  and  a 
lower  house  elected  by  popular  vote.  Under  this  act, 
the  practice  of  appointing  Americans  to  the  chief  exec 
utive  offices  took  the  final  control  of  legislative  matters 
out  of  the  hands  of  the  natives,  leaving  them  only  an 
initiatory  power.  This  produced  a  friction  between 


IMPERIALISM  223 

the  appointive  and  elective  branches  of  the  government, 
which  became  so  troublesome  that  the  dispute  had  to 
be  carried  to  Washington  in  1909,  and  Congress  enacted 
a  measure  providing  that,  in  case  the  lower  house  of 
the  Porto  Rican  legislature  refused  to  pass  the  budget, 
the  financial  arrangements  of  the  previous  year  should 
continue. 

The  problem  of  governing  the  Philippines  was  in 
finitely  more  complicated  than  that  of  governing  Porto 
Rico,  because  the  archipelago  embraced  more  than 
three  thousand  islands  and  about  thirty  different  tribes 
and  dialects.  The  evolution  of  American  control  there 
falls  into  three  stages.  At  first,  they  were  governed  by 
the  President  of  the  United  States  under  his  military 
authority.  In  1901,  a  civil  commission,  with  Mr.  W.  H. 
Taft  at  the  head,  took  over  the  civil  administration  of 
all  the  pacified  provinces.  In  1902,  Congress  passed 
an  " organic  act"  for  the  Islands,  providing  that,  after 
their  pacification,  a  legislative  assembly  should  be 
erected.  At  length,  in  1907,  this  assembly  was  duly 
instituted,  and  the  government  now  consists  of  the 
governor,  a  commission  appointed  by  the  President 
and  Senate,  and  a  legislature  composed  of  the  commis 
sion  and  a  lower  house  of  representatives  elected  by 
popular  vote. 

Important  as  are  the  problems  of  governing  depend 
encies,  they  are  not  the  sole  or  even  the  most  signifi 
cant  aspects  of  imperialism.  The  possession  of  terri 
tories  gives  a  larger  control  over  the  development  of 
their  trade  and  resources;  but  capital  and  enterprise 


224     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

seeking  an  outlet  flow  to  those  countries  where  the 
advantages  offered  are  the  greatest,  no  matter  whoever 
may  exercise  political  dominion  there.  The  acquisition 
of  the  Philippines  was  simply  an  episode  in  the  develop 
ment  of  American  commercial  interests  in  the  Orient. 

It  was  those  interests  which  led  the  United  States 
to  send  Caleb  Gushing  to  China  in  1844  to  negotiate 
a  treaty  with  that  country  securing  for  Americans  rights 
of  trade  in  the  ports  which  had  recently  been  blown 
open  by  British  guns  in  the  famous  "  Opium  War." 
It  was  those  interests  which  induced  the  United  States 
government  to  send  Commodore  Perry  to  Japan  in 
1853  and  led  to  the  opening  of  that  nation  —  long 
closed  to  the  outside  world  —  to  American  trade  and 
enterprise.  After  1844  in  China,  and  1854  in  Japan, 
American  trade  steadily  increased,  and  American  capital 
seeking  investments  soon  began  to  flow  into  Chinese 
business  and  railway  undertakings.  Although  the 
United  States  did  not  attempt  to  follow  the  example 
of  Great  Britain,  Russia,  France,  and  Germany  in 
seizing  Chinese  territory,  it  did  obtain  a  sufficient  eco 
nomic  interest  in  that  Empire  to  warrant  the  employ 
ment  of  American  soldiers  in  cooperation  with  Russian, 
English,  French,  Japanese,  and  other  contingents  at 
the  time  of  the  Boxer  insurrection  at  Peking  in  the  sum 
mer  of  1900. 

The  policy  of  the  United  States  at  the  time  won  no 
little  praise  from  the  Chinese  government.  Having 
no  territorial  ambitions  in  the  Empire,  the  administra 
tion  at  Washington,  through  Mr.  John  Hay,  Secretary 
of  State,  was  able  to  announce  that  the  United  States 


IMPERIALISM  225 

favored  an  "open  door"  for  trade  and  the  maintenance 
of  the  territorial  integrity  of  China.  "The  policy  of 
the  Government  of  the  United  States,"  said  Mr.  Hay 
to  the  Powers,  in  the  summer  of  1900,  "is  to  seek  a 
solution  which  may  bring  about  permanent  safety  and 
peace  to  China,  preserve  Chinese  territorial  and  adminis 
trative  entity,  protect  all  rights  guaranteed  to  friendly 
powers  by  treaty  and  international  law,  and  safeguard 
for  the  world  the  principle  of  equal  and  impartial  trade 
with  all  parts  of  the  Chinese  empire."  This  friendly 
word,  which  was  much  appreciated  by  China,  was  later 
supplemented  by  the  generous  action  of  the  United 
States  government  in  returning  to  that  country  a  large 
sum  of  money  which  had  been  collected  as  an  indemnity 
for  the  injury  to  American  rights  in  the  Boxer  uprising, 
and  was  discovered  to  be  an  overcharge  due  to  excessive 
American  claims. 

While  thus  developing  American  interests  in  the 
Orient,  the  United  States  government  was  much  em 
barrassed  by  the  legislation  of  some  of  the  western 
states  against  Orientals.  Chinese  and  Japanese  laborers 
were  excluded  from  the  country  by  law  or  agreements, 
but  in  spite  of  this  fact  there  were  large  numbers  of 
Orientals  on  the  coast.  This  was  resented  by  many 
whites,  particularly  trade  unionists  with  whom  the  cheap 
labor  came  into  competition,  and  from  time  to  time  laws 
were  enacted  by  state  legislatures  that  were  alleged 
to  violate  the  rights  which  the  United  States  had  guar 
anteed  to  the  Chinese  or  Japanese  by  treaties  with  their 
respective  countries. 

Such  a  dispute  occurred  a  few  years  ago  over  an  at- 
Q 


226     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

tempt  to  exclude  Japanese  children  from  the  regular 
public  schools  in  San  Francisco,  and  again  in  1912  in 
connection  with  a  law  of  California  relative  to  the  ac 
quisition  of  lands  by  aliens  —  the  naturalization  of 
Orientals  being  forbidden  by  Federal  law.  These 
legal  disputes  arose  from  the  fact  that  the  Federal 
government  has  the  power  to  make  treaties  with  foreign 
countries  relative  to  matters  which  are  entirely  within 
the  control  of  state  legislatures.  The  discriminations 
against  the  Orientals,  coupled  with  the  pressure  of 
American  interests  in  the  Far  East  and  the  presence  of 
American  dominion  in  the  Philippines,  caused  no  little 
friction  between  certain  sections  of  the  United  States 
and  of  Japan ;  and  there  were  some  who  began,  shortly 
after  the  Spanish  War,  to  speak  of  the  "  impending 
conflict"  in  the  Orient. 

The  Campaign  of  ipoo 

It  was  inevitable  that  the  new  issues,  raised  by  the 
Spanish  War,  the  acquisition  of  the  insular  possessions, 
and  the  insurrection  against  American  rule  in  the  Phil 
ippines,  should  find  their  way  almost  immediately  into 
national  politics.  By  the  logic  of  their  situation,  the 
Republicans  were  compelled  to  defend  their  imperialist 
policy,  although  it  was  distasteful  to  many  of  the  old 
leaders ;  and  at  their  national  convention,  at  Philadelphia 
in  June,  1900,  they  renominated  President  McKinley 
by  acclamation,  justified  their  methods  in  the  depend 
encies,  approved  the  new  commercial  advances  in  the 
Orient,  advocated  government  aid  to  the  merchant 


IMPERIALISM  227 

marine,  and  commended  the  acquisition  of  the  Hawaiian 
Islands.  The  trust  plank,  couched  in  vague  and  uncer 
tain  terms,  was,  interestingly  enough,  drafted  by  Mr. 
Hanna,  who  appropriately  levied  the  campaign  col 
lections  for  his  party  in  Wall  Street.1  Mr.  Roosevelt, 
then  governor  of  New  York,  was  nominated  for  Vice 
President,  although  he  had  refused  to  agree  to  accept 
the  office.  The  desire  of  Senator  Platt,  the  Republican 
"boss"  in  New  York,  to  put  him  out  of  the  state  threw 
the  " machine"  in  his  favor,  and  this,  combined  with 
enthusiasm  for  him  in  the  West,  gave  him  every  vote  in 
the  convention  save  his  own.  Under  the  circumstances 
he  was  forced  to  accept  the  nomination. 

The  Democrats  took  up  the  challenge  on  "imperial 
ism"  ;  but  Mr.  Bryan  was  determined  not  to  allow  the 
silver  question  to  sink  into  an  early  grave,  and  he  ac 
cordingly  forced  the  adoption  of  a  free  silver  plank,  as 
the  price  of  his  accepting  the  nomination.  The  platform 
was  strong  in  its  denunciation  of  Republican  "imperial 
ist"  policy,  in  general  and  in  detail.  It  favored  prom 
ising  the  Filipinos  stable  government,  independence, 
and,  finally,  protection  from  outside  interference.  It 
was  also  more  positive  on  the  trust  question,  and  it 
advocated  an  increase  in  the  powers  of  the  interstate 
commerce  commission,  enabling  it  "to  protect  individ 
uals  and  communities  from  discriminations  and  the 
people  from  unjust  and  unfair  transportation  rates." 
An  effort  was  made  to  placate  the  conservative  section 
of  the  party  by  offering  the  nomination  to  the  Vice 
Presidency  to  David  B.  Hill,  of  New  York,  and  on  his 

1  Croly,  Life  of  Marcus  Hanna,  p.  307. 


228     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

refusal  of  the  honor  it  was  given  to  Adlai  Stevenson,  who 
had  held  that  office  during  Cleveland's  second  admin 
istration. 

Although  many  Republicans  supported  Mr.  Bryan 
on  account  of  their  dislike  of  imperialism  and  its  works, 
the  result  of  the  campaign  was  a  second  victory  for 
Mr.  McKinley,  even  greater  than  that  of  1896.  He 
received  a  larger  popular  vote  and  Mr.  Bryan  a  smaller 
vote  than  in  that  year.  Of  the  447  electors,  Mr.  Mc 
Kinley  received  292.  This  happy  outcome  he  natu 
rally  regarded  as  a  vindication  of  his  policies,  and  he  was 
evidently  turning  toward  the  future  with  renewed  con 
fidence  (as  his  Buffalo  speech  on  reciprocity  indicated) 
when  on  September  6,  1901,  he  was  shot  by  an  anarchist 
at  the  Buffalo  exposition  and  died  eight  days  later. 

Mr.  Roosevelt  immediately  took  the  oath  of  office,  and 
promised  to  continue  " absolutely  unbroken"  the  policy 
of  his  predecessor. 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE   DEVELOPMENT   OF   CAPITALISM 

THE  years  immediately  following  the  War  with  Spain 
were  marked  by  extraordinary  prosperity  in  business. 
The  country  recovered  from  the  collapse  of  the  nineties 
and  entered  with  full  swing  into  another  era  of  inflation 
and  promotion.  The  Dingley  tariff  law,  enacted  July 
24,  1897,  had  incidentally  aided  in  the  process  by  raising 
the  protection  principle  to  its  highest  point  since  the 
Civil  War,  but  the  causes  of  the  upward  movement  lay 
deeper.  The  Spanish  War,  of  course,  stimulated  trade, 
for  destruction  on  such  a  large  scale  always  creates  a 
heavy  demand  for  commodities  and  capital  —  a  demand 
which  was  partially  met,  as  usual,  by  huge  drafts  on  the 
future  in  the  form  of  an  increased  national  debt.  But 
the  real  cause  lay  in  the  nature  of  the  economic  processes 
which  had  produced  the  periodical  cycles  of  inflation 
and  collapse  during  the  nineteenth  century.  Having 
recovered  from  a  collapse  previous  to  the  War,  inflation 
and  capitalization  on  a  gigantic  scale  set  in  and  did  not 
run  their  course  until  a  debacle  in  1907. 

The  formation  of  trusts  and  the  consolidation  of  older 
combinations  in  this  period  were  commensurate  in  scale 
with  the  gigantic  financial  power  created  by  capitalist 
accumulations.  The  period  of  the  later  seventies  and 
eighties,  as  has  been  shown,  was  a  period  of  hot  competi 
tion  followed  by  pools,  combinations,  and  trusts.  The 

229 


230     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

era  which  followed  the  Spanish  War  differed  in  degree 
rather  than  in  kind,  but  it  was  marked  by  financial 
operations  on  a  scale  which  would  have  staggered  earlier 
promoters.  Perhaps  it  would  be  best  to  say  that  the 
older  school  merely  found  its  real  strength  at  the  close 
of  the  century,  for  the  new  financing  was  done  by  the 
Vanderbilt,  Astor,  Gould,  Morgan,  and  Rockefeller 
interests,  the  basis  of  which  had  been  laid  earlier.  There 
was,  in  fact,  no  break  in  the  process,  save  that  which  was 
made  by  the  contraction  of  the  early  nineties.  But 
the  operations  of  the  new  era  were  truly  grand  in  their 
conception  and  execution. 

A  few  examples  will  serve  to  illustrate  the  process. 
In  1900,  the  National  Sugar  Refining  Company  of 
New  Jersey  was  formed  with  a  capital  of  $90,000,000, 
and  "from  its  inception  it  adopted  the  policy  of  issuing 
no  public  statements  to  its  stockholders  regarding  earn 
ings  or  financial  conditions.  The  only  statement  ...  is 
simply  an  annual  balance  sheet,  showing  the  assets  and 
liabilities  of  the  corporation  in  a  greatly  condensed 
form."  In  1904,  the  total  capital  of  parent  and  affiliated 
concerns  was  approximately  $145,000,000.  The  Copper 
Trust  was  incorporated  under  New  Jersey  laws  in  1899, 
and  in  1904  its  par  value  capital  was  $175,000,000.  In 
1899,  the  Smelters'  Trust  with  an  authorized  capital  of 
about  $65,000,000  was  formed.  In  the  same  year  the 
Standard  Oil  Company,  as  the  successor  to  the  Trust, 
was  organized  with  $102,233,700  capital. 

The  process  of  consolidation  may  best  be  shown  by 
turning  from  generalities  to  a  brief  study  of  the  United 
States  Steel  Corporation,  a  great  portion  of  whose  busi- 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  CAPITALISM      231 

ness  was  laid  bare  in  1911-12  by  a  Federal  investiga 
tion.  It  appears  that  until  about  1898  there  was  a  large 
number  of  steel  concerns  actively  engaged  in  a  competi 
tion  which  was  modified  at  times  by  pools  and  price 
agreements;  and  that  each  of  them  was  vigorously 
reaching  out,  not  only  for  more  trade,  but  for  control  over 
the  chief  source  of  strength  —  supply  of  ore.  Finally, 
in  the  closing  days  of  the  nineties,  this  competition 
and  stress  for  control  became  so  great  that  the  steel 
men  and  the  associated  financial  interests  began  to  fear 
that  the  increased  facilities  for  production  would  result 
in  flooding  the  market  and  in  ruining  a  number  of  con 
cerns.  The  rough  steel  manufacturers  began  to  push 
into  the  field  of  finished  products,  and  the  wire,  nail, 
plate,  and  tube  concerns  were  crowding  into  the  rough 
steel  manufacturing.  All  were  scrambling  for  ore  beds. 
In  this  " struggle  of  the  giants"  the  leading  steel  makers 
saw  nothing  but  disaster,  and  they  set  to  work  to  con 
solidate  a  dozen  or  more  companies.  Their  labors  were 
crowned  with  success  on  April  i,  1901,  when  the  new 
corporation  with  a  capital  of  a  little  more  than 
$1,400,000,000  began  business. 

In  the  consolidation  of  the  several  concerns  an  in 
crease  of  more  than  $400,000,000  was  made  in  the  total 
capital;  and  a  stock  commission  of  the  cash  value  of 
$62,500,000  was  given  to  the  Morgan  underwriting 
syndicate  for  financing  the  enterprise.  It  is,  of  course, 
impossible  to  discover  now  the  physical  value  of  the 
properties  consolidated,  many  of  which  were  already 
heavily  "  watered."  Of  the  Carnegie  concern,  a  Federal 
report  says,  "The  evidence  on  the  whole  tends  to  show 


232     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

that  bonds  were  issued  substantially  up  to  the  full 
amount  of  the  physical  assets  acquired  and  that  the 
stock  was  issued  merely  against  good  will  and  other  in 
tangible  considerations."  How  much  of  the  total  capi 
tal  was  "water"  is  impossible  to  determine,  but  the 
Bureau  of  Corporations  estimates  "that  more  than 
$150,000,000  of  the  stock  of  the  Steel  Corporation  (this 
including  more  than  $41,000,000  of  preferred  stock  and 
$109,000,000  of  common  stock)  was  issued,  either 
directly  or  indirectly  (through  exchange)  for  mere  pro 
motion  or  underwriting  services.  This  total,  moreover, 
as  noted  does  not  include  anything  for  the  American 
Sheet  Steel  Company  .  .  .  nor  is  anything  added  in  the 
case  of  the  Shelby  Steel  Tube  Company.  It  should  be 
repeated  that  this  enormous  total  of  over  $150,000,000 
does  not  include  common  stock  issued  as  bonus  with 
preferred  for  property  or  for  cash,  but  simply  what  may 
be  termed  the  promotion  and  organization  commissions 
in  the  strict  sense.  In  other  words,  nearly  one  seventh 
of  the  total  capital  stock  of  the  Steel  Corporation  appears 
to  have  been  issued,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  to 
promoters  for  their  services."  How  much  more  of  the 
$440,000,000  additional  capital  represented  something 
other  than  physical  values  is  partially  a  matter  of  guess 
work.  The  Bureau  of  Corporations  valued  the  tangible 
property  of  the  corporation  at  $682,000,000  in  1901,  as 
against  $1,400,000,000  issued  securities;  and  computed 
the  rate  of  profit  from  1901  to  1910  on  the  actual  invest 
ment  at  12  per  cent.  It  should  be  noted,  also,  that 
shortly  after  the  formation  of  the  concern  the  common 
stock  which  had  been  issued  fell  with  a  crash,  and  the 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF   CAPITALISM      233 

outsiders  who  risked  their  fortunes  in  the  concern  were 
ruined.1 

All  of  the  leading  trusts  and  railways  were,  even  at  their 
inception,  intimately  connected  through  cross  in  vestments 
and  interlocking  directorates.  Writing  in  1904,  Mr. 
Moody,  an  eminent  financial  authority,  said:  " Around 
these  two  groups  [the  Morgan- Rockefeller  interests],  or 
what  must  ultimately  become  one  greater  group,  all 
other  smaller  groups  of  capitalists  congregate.  They  are 
all  allied  and  intertwined  by  their  various  mutual  in 
terests.  For  instance,  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad  in 
terests  are  on  the  one  hand  allied  with  the  Vanderbilts 
and  on  the  other  with  the  Rockefellers.  The  Vander 
bilts  are  closely  allied  with  the  Morgan  group,  and  both 
the  Pennsylvania  and  Vanderbilt  interests  have  recently 
become  the  dominating  factors  in  the  Reading  system, 
a  former  Morgan  road  and  the  most  important  part  of 
the  anthracite  coal  combine  which  has  always  been  dom 
inated  by  the  Morgan  people.  .  .  .  Viewed  as  a  whole, 
we  find  the  dominating  influences  in  the  trusts  to  be  made 
up  of  an  intricate  network  of  large  and  small  capitalists, 
many  allied  to  another  by  ties  of  more  or  less  impor 
tance,  but  all  being  appendages  to  or  parts  of  the  greater 
groups  which  are  themselves  dependent  on  and  allied 
with  the  two  mammoth,  or  Rockefeller  and  Morgan, 
groups.  These  two  mammoth  groups  jointly  .  .  . 
constitute  the  heart  of  the  business  and  commercial  life 
of  the  nation."  2 

1  Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Corporations  on  the  Steel  Industry, 
July  i,  IQII. 

2  Moody,  The  Truth  about  the  Trusts,  p.  493. 


234     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

How  tremendous  is  this  corporate  control  over  busi 
ness,  output,  and  wage  earners  is  indicated  by  the 
census  of  1909.  Of  the  total  number  of  establishments 
reported  as  engaged  in  manufacturing  in  1904,  23.6  per 
cent  were  under  corporate  ownership,  while  in  1909  the 
percentage  had  increased  to  25.9.  Although  they  con 
trolled  only  about  one  fourth  of  the  total  number  of 
establishments,  corporations  employed  70.6  per  cent  of 
all  the  wage  earners  reported  in  1904  and  75.6  per  cent 
in  1909.  Still  more  significant  are  the  figures  relative' 
to  the  output  of  corporations.  Of  the  total  value  of 
the  product  of  all  establishments,  73.7  per  cent  was 
turned  out  by  corporations  in  1904  and  79  per  cent  in 
1909.  "In  most  of  the  states,"  runs  the  Census  Report, 
"between  three  fifths  and  nine  tenths  of  the  total  value 
of  manufactured  products  in  1909  was  reported  by 
establishments  under  corporate  ownership."  Of  the 
268,491  establishments  reported  in  1909,  there  were 
3061  which  produced  43.8  per  cent  of  the  total  value  of 
all  products  and  employed  30.5  per  cent  of  the  wage 
earners.  It  is,  in  fact,  this  absorption  of  business  by  a 
small  number  of  concerns  which  marks  the  great  concen 
tration  of  modern  industry.  The  mere  number  of  corpo 
rations  is  not  of  much  significance,  for  most  of  them 
are  petty. 

In  addition  to  gaining  control  of  the  leading  manu 
facturing  concerns  and  the  chief  natural  resources  of  the 
country,  the  great  capitalist  interests  seized  upon 
social  values  to  the  amount  of  billions  of  dollars  through 
stock  watering  and  manipulations  of  one  kind  or  an 
other.  "Between  1868  and  1872,  for  example,  the  share 


THE   DEVELOPMENT  OF   CAPITALISM       235 

capital  of  the  Erie  was  increased  from  $17,000,000  to 
$78,000,000,  largely  for  the  purpose  of  stock-market 
manipulation.  .  .  .  The  original  Central  Pacific  Rail 
road,  for  instance,  actually  cost  only  $58,000,000 ;  it  is 
a  matter  of  record  that  $120,000,000  was  paid  a  construc 
tion  company  for  the  work.  The  syndicate  which 
financed  the  road  received  $62,500,000  par  value  in 
securities  as  profits,  a  sum  greater  than  it  actually  cost 
to  build  the  property.  The  80  per  cent  stock  dividend 
of  the  New  York  Central  in  1868 ;  scrip  dividends  on 
the  Reading  in  the  seventies ;  the  50  per  cent  dividend 
of  the  Atchison  in  1881 ;  the  100  per  cent  stock  dividends 
of  the  Louisville  and  Nashville  in  1880,  by  a  pen  stroke 
adding  $20,000,000  to  'cost  of  road'  upon  the  balance 
sheet ;  the  notorious  100  per  cent  dividend  of  the  Boston 
and  Albany  in  1882  [are  further  examples].  .  .  .  Recent 
inflations  of  capitalization  in  connection  with  railroad 
consolidation  are  headed  by  the  case  of  the  Rock  Island 
Company.  In  1902  this  purely  financial  corporation 
bought  up  the  old  Chicago,  Rock  Island,  and  Pacific 
Railway,  capitalized  at  $75,000,000  and  substituted 
therefor  its  own  stock  to  the  amount  of  $117,000,000, 
together  with  $75,000,000  of  collateral  trust  bonds, 
secured  by  the  stock  of  the  property  acquired.  The 
entire  history  of  the  New  York  traction  companies  is 
studded  with  similar  occurrences.  One  instance  may 
suffice.  In  1906  the  Interborough-Metropolitan  Com 
pany  purchased  $105,540,000  in  securities  of  the  merged 
lines,  and  issued  in  place  thereof  $138,309,000  of  its  own 
stock  and  $70,000,000  in  bonds.  ...  E.  H.  Harriman 
and  three  associates  .  .  .  expanded  the  total  capitaliza- 


236     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

tion  of  the  [Alton]  road  from  $33,950,000  to  $i  14,600,000, 
an  increase  of  over  $80,000,000.  In  improvements  and 
additions  to  the  property  out  of  this  augmented  capi 
talization,  their  own  accounts  showed  only  about 
$18,000,000  expended.  It  thus  appears  that  securities 
aggregating  $62,600,000  were  put  forth  during  this 
time  [seven  years,  beginning  in  1898],  without  one  dollar 
of  consideration.  This  sum  is  equal  to  about  $66,000 
per  mile  of  line  owned  —  a  figure  considerably  in  excess 
of  the  average  net  capitalization  of  the  railroads  of  the 
country."  1 

It  is  not  necessary  to  cite  further  evidence  to  show 
that  billions  of  dollars  of  fictitious  values  were  saddled 
upon  the  country  between  the  end  of  the  Civil  War  and 
the  close  of  the  century.  A  considerable  portion  of  the 
amount  of  stocks  and  bonds  issued  was  doubtless  based 
on  the  dividend-paying  power  of  the  concerns  in  question. 
In  many  instances  the  stock  was  not  purchased  in  large 
quantities  by  the  investing  public,  but  was  simply 
issued  to  promoters,  and  when  values  collapsed  they  only 
lost  so  much  worthless  paper.  It  is  apparent,  "there 
fore,  that  all  the  stock  watering  is  not  of  the  same  char 
acter  or  effect ;  but  nevertheless  it  remains  a  fact  that 
the  buying  public  and  the  working  class  are  paying 
millions  in  annual  tribute  to  the  holders  of  paper  which 
represents  no  economic  service  whatever.  If  the  water 
were  all  squeezed  out  of  railway,  franchise,  and  industrial 
stocks  and  bonds  and  the  mineral  and  other  resources 
which  have  been  actually  secured  at  a  nominal  value,  or 
fraudulently  were  returned  to  the  government,  there 

1  Professor  W.  Z.  Ripley,  Political  Science  Quarterly,  March,  1911. 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF   CAPITALISM      237 

would  be  a  shrinkage  in  the  necessary  dividends  paid 
out  that  would  startle  the  world. 

Those  who  followed  the  literature  of  political  economy 
during  this  period  of  gigantic  consolidation  and  high 
finance  could  not  help  discovering  a  decided  change  in 
the  views  of  leading  men  about  the  nature  of  industrial 
evolution.  The  old  practice  of  indiscriminate  abuse  of 
all  trusts  began  to  undergo  a  decided  modification ;  only 
persons  from  the  backward  industrial  regions  of  the  West 
and  South  continued  the  inordinate  clamor  for  the  im 
mediate  and  unconditional  dissolution  of  all  of  them,  on 
the  theory  that  they  were  " artificial"  products,  brought 
forth  and  nourished  by  malicious  men  bent  solely  upon 
enhancing  their  personal  fortunes.  The  socialist  con 
tention  (set  forth  by  Marx  and  Engels  in  1848)  that 
competition  destroyed  itself,  and  that  the  whole  move 
ment  of  industry  was  inevitably  toward  consolidation, 
began  to  receive  attention,  although  the  socialist  solu 
tion  of  the  problem  was  not  accepted. 

This  change  in  attitude  was  the  result  partly  of  the 
testimony  of  practical  business  men  before  the  ^Industrial 
Commission  in  1900,  which  was  summarized  in  the  fol 
lowing  manner  by  the  Commission :  "  Among  the  causes 
which  have  led  to  the  formation  of  industrial  combina 
tions,  most  of  the  witnesses  were  of  the  opinion  that 
competition,  so  vigorous  that  profits  of  nearly  all  com 
peting  establishments  were  destroyed,  is  to  be  given  the 
first  place.  Even  Mr.  Havemeyer  said  this,  though,  as 
he  believed  that  in  many  cases  competition  was  brought 
about  by  the  fact  that  the  too  high  protective  tariff  had 


238     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

tempted  too  many  rivals  into  the  field,  he  named  the 
customs  tariff  law  as  the  primal  cause.  Many  of  the 
witnesses  say  that  their  organization  was  formed  to  make 
economies,  to  lessen  competition,  and  to  get  higher  profits 
—  another  way  of  saying  that  competition  is  the  cause 
without  conceding  that  the  separate  plants  were  forced 
to  combine." 

In  a  careful  and  thoughtful  analysis  of  the  problem, 
published  in  1900  by  Professor  J.  W.  Jenks,  then  of 
Cornell  University,  the  wastes  of  competition  and  the 
economies  of  combination  (within  limits)  were  pointed 
out  with  clarity  and  precision.  The  Industrial  Commis 
sion  had  reported  that  rebates  and  discriminations  by 
railways  had  been  declared  to  be  a  leading  cause  of  com 
bination  by  several  witnesses  appearing  before  it;  but 
Professor  Jenks  at  the  close  of  his  survey  came  to  the 
positive  conclusion  "that,  whenever  the  nature  of  the 
industry  is  one  which  is  peculiarly  adapted  for  organi 
zation  on  a  large  scale,  these  peculiarities  will  so 
strengthen  the  tendency  toward  a  virtual  monopoly 
that,  without  legal  aid  and  special  discriminations  or 
advantages  being  granted  by  either  the  State  or  any 
other  influence,  a  combination  will  be  made,  and  if 
shrewdly  managed  can  and,  after  more  experience  in 
this  line  has  been  gained,  probably  will  practically  con 
trol  permanently  the  market,  unless  special  legal  efforts 
better  directed  than  any  so  far  attempted  shall  pre 
vent."1  The  logical  result  of  this  conclusion  is  at  least 
government  supervision,  and  this  Mr.  Jenks  advocated. 

Whether  some  special  privileges  beyond  the  owner- 

1  The  Trust  Problem  (1900  ed.),  p.  210. 


THE   DEVELOPMENT  OF   CAPITALISM      239 

ship  of  basic  natural  resources  was  necessary  to  bring 
about  combinations  on  a  large  scale,  the  leaders  in  such 
combinations  seem  to  have  engaged  extensively  in  pol 
itics,  contributing  to  the  campaign  funds  of  both  parties, 
helping  to  select  their  candidates,  and  maintaining  ex 
pensive  lobbies  at  Washington  and  at  the  capitals  of  the 
several  states.  Mr.  Havemeyer  admitted  before  a  Senate 
committee  in  1893  that  the  Sugar  Trust  was  "a  Demo 
crat  in  a  Democratic  state  and  a  Republican  in  a  Re 
publican  state"  ;  and  added  that  in  his  opinion  all  other 
large  corporations  made  contributions  to  the  two  leading 
parties  as  a  matter  of  course,  for  "protection."  The 
testimony  taken  by  the  New  York  insurance  investigat 
ing  committee  in  1905  and  by  the  Clapp  committee 
of  the  United  States  Senate  in  1912  revealed  the  fact 
that  during  the  period  between  1896  and  1912  millions 
of  dollars  had  been  contributed  to  the  Republican  party 
by  the  men  who  had  been  most  active  in  organizing  the 
great  industrial  combinations,  and  that  representatives 
of  the  same  group  had  also  given  aid  and  comfort  to  the 
Democratic  party,1  although  the  latter,  being  out  of 
power  at  Washington,  could  not  levy  tribute  with  the 
same  effectiveness. 

The  statesman  of  the  new  capitalism  was  Mr.  Marcus 
A.  Hanna.  Mr.  Hanna  was  born  in  1837  of  pioneer 
stock  of  the  second  or  third  generation,  after  the  rough 
ness  of  the  earlier  days  was  somewhat  smoothed  away 
without  injury  to  the  virility  of  the  fiber.  He  entered 
business  in  Cleveland  in  1858  at  a  time  when  a  remark 
able  group  of  business  men,  including  Mr.  John  D. 

1  See  the  Parker  episode,  below,  p.  268. 


240     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

Rockefeller,  were  laying  the  foundation  of  their  fortunes. 
Endowed  with  hard,  practical,  economic  sense,  he  refused 
to  be  carried  away  by  the  enthusiasm  that  was  sweeping 
thousands  of  young  men  of  his  age  into  the  Union  army, 
and  he  accordingly  remained  at  his  post  of  business.1 
It  was  fortunate  for  his  career  that  he  did  not  lose  those 
four  years,  for  it  was  then  that  he  made  the  beginnings 
of  his  great  estate  in  coal,  iron,  oil,  and  merchandising. 

Mr.  Hanna,  like  most  of  the  new  generation  of  north 
ern  business  men,  was  an  ardent  Republican.  "He 
went  into  politics  as  a  citizen,"  remarks  his  biographer. 
"The  motive,  in  so  far  as  it  was  conscious,  was  undoubt 
edly  patriotic.  That  he  should  wish  to  serve  his  country 
as  well  as  himself  and  his  family  was  rooted  in  his  make 
up.  If  he  proposed  to  serve  his  country,  a  man  of  his 
disposition  and  training  could  only  do  so  by  active  work 
in  party  politics.  Patriotism  meant  to  him  Republican 
ism.  Good  government  meant  chiefly  Republican  gov 
ernment.  Hence  the  extreme  necessity  of  getting  good 
Republicans  elected  and  the  absolute  identity  in  his 
mind  and  in  the  minds  of  most  of  his  generation  between 
public  and  party  service."  2  In  his  early  days,  there 
fore,  he  participated  in  politics  in  a  small  way,  but  it 
was  not  until  1891,  during  the  candidacy  of  Mr.  Mc- 
Kinley  for  governor  of  Ohio",  and  Mr.  Sherman  for  the 
Senate,  that  he  began  to  serve  his  party  in  a  large  way 
by  raising  campaign  funds.3 

In  1895  Mr.  Hanna  retired  from  active  business  and 

1  Mr.  Hanna  was  drafted  in  1864,  but  saw  no  actual  service.    Croly, 
Marcus  A.  Hanna,  p.  44. 

2  Croly,  p.  113.  3  Ibid.,  p.  160. 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF   CAPITALISM      241 

set  about  the  task  of  elevating  Mr.  McKinley  to  the 
Presidency.  He  spent  a  great  deal  of  time  at  first  in 
the  South  securing  Republican  delegates  from  the  states 
where  the  Republican  party  was  a  shadow,  and  other 
than  party  considerations  entered  largely  into  selection 
of  delegates  to  the  Republican  convention.  While  laying 
a  solid  foundation  in  the  South,  Mr.  Hanna  bent  every 
effort  in  capturing  the  delegates  in  northern  states. 
According  to  Mr.  Croly,  "  Almost  the  whole  cost  of  the 
campaign  for  Mr.  McKinley's  nomination  was  paid  by 
Mr.  Hanna.  .  .  .  He  did  receive  some  help  from  Mr. 
McKinley's  personal  friends  in  Ohio  and  elsewhere,  but 
its  amount  was  small  compared  to  the  total  expenses. 
First  and  last  Mr.  Hanna  contributed  something  over 
$100,000  toward  the  expense  of  the  canvass."  l 

Mr.  Hanna  firmly  believed,  and  quite  naturally  too, 
that  the  large  business  concerns  which  had  prospered 
under  the  policies  of  the  Republican  party  should  con 
tribute  generously  to  its  support.  As  early  as  1888, 
when  the  tariff  scare,  seized  certain  sections  of  the  coun 
try,  he  was  selected  as  financial  auxiliary  to  the  Repub 
lican  national  committee,  and  raised  about  $100,000 
in  Cleveland,  Toledo,  Mahoning  Valley,  and  adjacent 
territory.2 

But  Mr.  Hanna's  greatest  exploits  in  financing  poli 
tics  were  in  connection  with  Mr.  McKinley's  campaigns. 
In  1896  he  at  first  encountered  some  difficulties  because 
of  his  middle  western  connections  and  the  predilection 
of  Wall  Street  for  Mr.  Levi  P.  Morton  in  preference  to 
Mr.  McKinley.  "Mr.  James  J.  Hill  states  that  on 

1  Croly,  p.  183.  zlbid.,  p.  149. 

R 


242      CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

August  15,  just  when  the  strenuous  work  of  the  campaign 
was  beginning,  he  met  Mr.  Hanna  by  accident  in  New 
York  and  found  the  chairman  very  much  discouraged. 
Mr.  Hanna  described  the  kind  of  work  which  was  planned 
by  the  Committee  and  its  necessarily  heavy  expense. 
He  had  been  trying  to  raise  the  needed  money,  but  with 
only  small  success.  The  financiers  of  New  York  would 
not  contribute.  It  looked  as  if  he  might  have  to  curtail 
his  plan  of  campaign,  and  he  was  so  disheartened  that 
he  talked  about  quitting.  Mr.  Hill  immediately  offered 
to  accompany  Mr.  Hanna  on  a  tour  through  the  high 
places  of  Wall  Street,  and  during  the  next  five  days  they 
succeeded  in  collecting  as  much  money  as  was  immedi 
ately  necessary.  Thereafter  Mr.  Hanna  did  not  need 
any  further  personal  introduction  to  the  leading  Ameri 
can  financiers."  * 

Many  grave  charges  were  brought  against  Mr.  Hanna 
to  the  effect  that  he  had  no  scruples  in  the  use  of  money 
for  corrupt  purposes,  but  such  charges  have  never  been 
substantiated  to  the  satisfaction  of  his  friends.  That 
in  earlier  days  he  employed  the  methods  which  were 
common  among  public  service  corporations,  is  admitted 
by  his  biographer,  but  condoned  on  the  ground  that 
practically  every  other  street  railway  company  in  the 
country  was  confronted  with  the  alternative  of  buying 
votes  or  influence.  Mr.  Hanna's  Cleveland  company 
"the  West  Side  Street  Railway  Company  and  its  suc 
cessors  were  no  exception  to  this  rule.  It  was  confronted 
by  its  competitors,  who  had  no  scruples  about  employing 
customary  methods,  and  if  it  had  been  more  scrupulous 

1  Croly,  p.  219. 


THE   DEVELOPMENT  OF   CAPITALISM       243 

than  they,  its  competitors  would  have  carried  off  all 
the  prizes.  Mr.  Hanna  had,  as  I  have  said,  a  way  of 
making  straight  for  his  goal.  .  .  .  He  and  his  company 
did  what  was  necessary  to  obtain  the  additional  fran 
chises  needed  for  the  development  of  the  system.  The 
railroad  contributed  to  local  campaign  committees  and 
the  election  expenses  of  particular  councilmen;  and  it 
did  so  for  the  purpose  of  exercising  an  effective  influence 
over  the  action  of  the  council  in  street  railway  matters."1 
Grave  charges  were  also  made  at  the  time  of  Mr. 
Hanna's  candidacy  for  the  United  States  Senate  that  he 
employed  the  methods  which  he  had  found  so  advan 
tageous  in  public-service-corporation  politics,  but  his 
biographer,  Mr.  Croly,  indignantly  denies  the  allega 
tion,  showing  very  conclusively  that  Mr.  Hanna  won  his 
nomination  squarely  on  the  issue  put  before  the  Repub 
lican  voters  and  was  under  the  rules  of  politics  entitled 
to  the  election  by  the  legislature.  Mr.  Hanna's  career, 
says  Mr.  Croly,  "  demanded  an  honorable  victory. 
Like  every  honest  man  he  had  conscientious  scruples 
about  buying  votes  for  his  own  political  benefit,  and  his 
conscience  when  aroused  was  dictatorial.  ...  It  does 
not  follow  that  no  money  was  corruptly  used  for  Mr. 
Hanna's  benefit.  Columbus  [Ohio]  was  full  of  rich 
friends  less  scrupulous  than  he.  ...  They  may  have 
been  willing  to  spend  money  in  Mr.  Hanna's  interest 
and  without  his  knowledge.  Whether  as  a  matter  of 
fact  any  such  money  was  spent  I  do  not  know,  but  under 
the  circumstances  the  possibility  thereof  should  be 
frankly  admitted."  2 

1  Croly,  p.  81.  2  Ibid.,  p.  264, 


244     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

In  his  political  science  as  well  as  his  business  of  politics, 
Mr.  Hanna  looked  to  the  instant  need  of  things.  He 
does  not  seem  to  have  been  a  student  of  history  or  of  the 
experience  of  his  own  or  other  countries  in  the  field  of 
social  legislation.  As  United  States  Senator  he  made 
practically  no  speeches,  if  we  except  his  remarks  in  favor 
of  ship  subsidies  and  liberal  treatment  of  armor  plate 
manufacturers.  On  the  stump,  for  in  later  years  he 
developed  some  facility  in  popular  addresses,  he  confined 
his  reflections  to  the  customary  generalizations  about 
prosperity  and  his  chief  contribution  to  political  phrase 
ology  was  the  slogan,  "  Stand  pat."1  When  not  en 
gaged  in  actual  labor  of  partisan  contests,  Mr.  Hanna 
seems  to  have  enjoyed  the  pleasure  of  the  table  and 
good  company  rather  than  the  arduous  researches  of 
the  student  of  politics.  He  had  an  immense  amount 
of  shrewd  practical  sense,  and  he  divined  a  good 
deal  more  by  his  native  powers  of  quick  perception 
than  many  a  statesman  of  the  old  school,  celebrated 
for  his  profundity  as  a  "  constitutional  lawyer  and 
jurist." 

The  complete  clew  to  Mr.  Hanna's  philosophy  of 
politics  is  thus  summed  up  by  his  penetrating  and 
sympathetic  biographer,  Mr.  Croly:  "We  must  bear 
in  mind  that  (i)  he  was  an  industrial  pioneer  and  in 
stinctively  took  to  politics  as  well  as  to  business ;  (2)  that 
in  politics  as  in  business  he  wanted  to  accomplish  results ; 

(3)  that  politics  meant  to  him  active  party  service; 

(4)  that  successful  party  service  meant  to  him  the  ac 
ceptance  of  prevailing  political  methods  and  abuses; 

1  Croly,  p.  417- 


THE   DEVELOPMENT   OF   CAPITALISM       245 

and  (5)  finally  that  he  was  bound  by  the  instinctive 
consistency  of  his  nature  to  represent  in  politics,  not 
merely  his  other  dominant  interest,  but  the  essential 
harmony  between  the  interests  of  business  and  that  of 
the  whole  community. "  In  other  words,  Mr.  Hanna 
believed  consistently  and  honestly  in  the  superior  fit 
ness  of  business  men  to  conduct  the  politics  of  a  coun 
try  which  was  predominantly  commercial  in  character. 
He  was  not  unaware  of  the  existence  of  a  working  class ; 
in  fact  he  was  said  to  be  a  generous  and  sympathetic 
employer  of  labor ;  but  he  could  not  conceive  the  use 
of  government  instrumentalities  frankly  in  behalf  of 
that  class.  Indeed,  he  thought  that  the  chief  func 
tion  of  the  government  was  to  help  business  and  not 
to  inquire  into  its  methods  or  interfere  with  its  pro 
cesses. 

An  illustration  of  Mr.  Hanna's  theory  of  governmental 
impotence  in  the  presence  of  the  dominant  private  in 
terests  was  afforded  in  the  debate  in  the  Senate  over  the 
price  to  be  paid  for  armor  plate,  in  the  summer  of  1900. 
The  Senate  proposed  that  not  more  than  a  stipulated 
price  should  be  paid  to  the  two  steel  companies,  Carnegie 
and  Bethlehem,  which  were  not  competing  with  each 
other ;  and  that,  in  case  they  failed  to  accept,  a  govern 
ment  manufacturing  plant  should  be  erected.  Mr. 
Hanna's  proposition  was  that  the  price  of  steel  should 
be  left,  as  the  House  had  proposed,  with  the  Secretary 
of  the  Navy,  and  he  warmly  resisted  all  government 
interference.  When  it  was  brought  out  in  debate  that 
the  steel  companies  had  refused  the  government  officers 
the  data  upon  which  to  determine  whether  the  price 


246      CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

charged  was  too  high,  Mr.  Hanna  declared:  "They  did 
perfectly  right  in  not  disclosing  those  facts.  That  is 
their  business ;  and  if  they  chose  not  to  give  the  infor 
mation  to  the  public,  that  was  their  business  also."  In 
short,  he  took  the  position  that  the  government  should 
provide  ample  protection  to  the  steel  interests  against 
foreign  competition,  and  pay  substantially  whatever  the 
steel  companies  might  charge  for  armor  plate  (for  with 
out  proper  data  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  could  not 
know  when  prices  were  reasonable),  and  then  ask  them 
no  questions  whatever.  Here  we  have  both  laissez 
faire  and  capitalism  in  their  simplest  form. 

Mr.  Hanna,  however,  had  none  of  the  arts  of  the  dema 
gogue,  not  even  the  minor  and  least  objectional  arts. 
His  bluntness  and  directness  in  labor  conflicts  won  for 
him  the  respect  of  large  numbers  of  his  employees.  His 
frank  and  open  advocacy  of  ship  subsidies  and  similar 
devices  commanded  the  regard,  if  not  the  esteem,  of  his 
political  enemies.  His  chief  faults,  as  viewed  by  his 
colleagues  as  well  as  his  enemies,  were  in  many  instances 
his  leading  virtues.  If  some  of  the  policies  and  tactics 
which  he  resorted  to  are  now  discredited  in  politics,  it 
must  be  admitted  that  he  did  not  invent  them,  and  that 
it  was  his  open  and  clean-cut  advocacy  of  them  that 
first  made  them  clearly  intelligible  to  the  public.  When 
all  the  minor  and  incidental  details  and  personalities 
of  the  conflicts  in  which  he  was  engaged  are  forgotten, 
Mr.  Hanna  will  stand  out  in  history  as  the  most  resource 
ful  and  typical  representative  of  the  new  capitalism 
which  closed  the  nineteenth  century  and  opened  the 
new. 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF   CAPITALISM      247 

The  Development  of  the  Urban  Population 

The  rapid  advance  of  business  enterprise  which 
followed  the  Spanish  War  made  more  striking  than 
ever  the  social  results  of  the  industrial  revolution.1  In 
the  first  place,  there  was  a  notable  growth  in  the  urban 
as  contrasted  with  the  rural  population.  At  the  close 
of  the  century  more  than  one  third  of  the  population 
had  become  city  dwellers.  The  census  of  1910  classified 
as  urban  all  thickly  populated  areas  of  more  than  2500 
inhabitants,  including  New  England  towns  which  are 
in  part  rural  in  character,  and  on  this  basis  reported 
46.3  per  cent  of  the  population  of  the  United  States  as 
urban  and  53.7  rural.  On  this  basis,  92.8  per  cent  of  the 
population  of  Massachusetts  was  reported  as  urban,  78.8 
per  cent  in  New  York,  and  60.4  per  cent  in  Pennsylvania. 
That  census  also  reported  that  "the  rate  of  increase  for 
the  population  of  urban  areas  was  over  three  times  that 
for  the  population  living  in  rural  territory." 

The  industrial  section  of  this  urban  population  was 
largely  composed  of  non-home  owners.  The  census 
of  1900  reported  "that  the  largest  proportion  of  hired 
homes,  87.9  per  cent,  is  found  in  New  York  City.  In 
Manhattan  and  Bronx  boroughs  the  proportion  is  even 
higher,  94.1  per  cent,  as  compared  with  82  per  cent  for 
Brooklyn.  .  .  .  There  is  also  a  very  large  proportion 
of  hired  homes  in  Boston,  Fall  River,  Jersey  City,  and 
Memphis,  constituting  in  each  of  them  four  fifths  of 
all  the  homes  in  1900."  Of  the  great  cities  having  a 
large  proportion  of  home  owners,  Detroit  stood  at  the 

1  See  above,  Chap.  II. 


248     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

head,  with  22.5  per  cent  of  the  population  owning  homes 
free  of  mortgage. 

Another  feature  of  the  evolution  of  the  working  class 
was  the  influx  of  foreign  labor,  and  the  change  in  its 
racial  character.  The  total  alien  immigration  between 
1880  and  1900  amounted  to  about  9,000,000 ;  and  in  1905 
the  immigration  for  the  fiscal  year  reached  1,026,449. 
For  the  fiscal  year  1910  it  reached  1,198,037.  During 
this  period  the  racial  composition  of  the  immigration 
changed  decidedly.  Before  1880  Celtic  and  Teutonic 
nations  furnished  three  fourths  of  the  immigrants ;  but 
in  1905  the  proportions  were  reversed  and  Slavic  and 
Iberian  nations,  Italy  leading,  sent  three  fourths  of  the 
immigrants. 

This  alien  population  drifted  naturally  to  the  industrial 
cities,  and  the  census  of  1910  reported  that  of  the  229 
cities  having  25,000  inhabitants  and  more,  the  native 
whites  of  native  parentage  furnished  only  35.6  per  cent, 
and  that  the  foreign-born  whites  constituted  44.5  per 
cent  in  Perth  Amboy,  New  Jersey,  40.4  per  cent  in  New 
York  City,  and  35.7  per  cent  in  Chicago.  From  the 
standpoint  of  politics,  a  significant  feature  of  this  de 
velopment  is  the  manning  of  American  industries 
largely  by  foreign  laborers  who  as  aliens  possess  no 
share  in  the  government. 

A  third  important  aspect  of  this  transformation  in 
the  mass  of  the  population  is  the  extensive  employment 
of  women  in  industries.  The  census  of  1910  reported 
that  19.5  per  cent  of  the  industrial  wage  earners  were 
women,  and  that  the  proportion  of  women'  breadwinners 
was  steadily  increasing.  The  proportion  of  females  who 


THE   DEVELOPMENT  OF   CAPITALISM      249 

were  engaged  in  gainful  pursuits  was  14.7  per  cent  in 
1870,  16  per  cent  in  1880,  19  per  cent  in  1890,  and  20.6 
per  cent  in  1900.  At  the  last  date,  about  one  third  of 
the  females  over  ten  years  of  age  in  Philadelphia  were 
engaged  in  gainful  pursuits,  and  one  eighth  were  employed 
in  industries.  At  the  same  time  about  15,000  out  of 
42,000  women  at  Fall  River,  Massachusetts,  were  in 
industries. 

The  Labor  Movement 

The  centralization  of  capital  and  the  development 
of  the  new  statesmen  of  Mr.  Hanna's  school  were  ac 
companied  by  a  consolidation  of  the  laboring  classes  and 
the  evolution  of  a  more  definite  political  program  for 
labor.  As  has  been  pointed  out  above,  the  economic 
revolution  which  followed  the  Civil  War  was  attended 
by  the  formation  of  unions  in  certain  trades  and  by  the 
establishment  of  the  Knights  of  Labor.  This  national 
organization  was  based  on  the  principle  that  all  of  the 
working  class  could  be  brought  together  in  a  great  so 
ciety,  equipped  for  waging  strikes  in  the  field  of  industry 
and  advancing  a  program  of  labor  legislation  at  the  same 
time.  This  society,  like  a  similar  one  promoted  by 
Robert  Owen  in  England  half  a  century  before,  fell 
to  pieces  on  account  of  its  inherent  weaknesses,  par 
ticularly  the  inability  of  the  leaders  to  overcome  the 
indifference  of  the  workingmen  in  prosperous  trades 
to  the  struggles  of  their  less  fortunate  brethren. 

Following  the  experience  of  England  also,  the  labor 
leaders  began  to  build  on  a  more  secure  foundation; 


250     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

namely,  the  organization  of  the  members  of  specific 
trades  into  local  unions  followed  by  their  amalgamation 
into  larger  societies.  Having  failed  to  stir  a  class  con 
sciousness,  they  fell  back  upon  the  trade  or  group  con 
sciousness  of  identical  interests.  In  1881,  ninety-five 
trade-unions  were  federated  on  a  national  scale,  and  in 
1886  this  society  was  reorganized  as  the  American  Fed 
eration  of  Labor.  The  more  radical  labor  men  went  on 
with  the  Knights,  but  the  foundations  of  that  society 
were  sapped  by  the  more  solidly  organized  rival,  which, 
in  spite  of  many  defeats  and  reverses,  steadily  in 
creased  in  its  membership  and  strength.  In  1910  the 
Federation  reported  that  its  affiliations  included  120 
international  unions,  39  state  federations,  632  city 
central  bodies,  431  local  trade-unions,  and  216  Federal 
labor  unions,  with  a  membership  totaling  1,744,444 
persons. 

Unlike  German  and  English  trade-unionists,  .the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  steadily  refused  to  go 
into  politics  as  a  separate  party  contesting  at  the  polls 
for  the  election  of  " labor"  representatives.  This  ab 
stention  from  direct  political  action  was  a  matter  of 
expediency,  it  seems,  rather  than  of  set  principle.  Mr. 
John  Mitchell,  the  eminent  former  leader  of  the  miners, 
declared  that  "wage  earners  should  in  proportion  to  their 
strength  secure  the  nomination  and  election  of  a  number 
of  representatives  to  the  governing  bodies  of  city,  state, 
and  nation";  but  he  added  that  "a  third  Labor  Party 
is  not  for  the  present  desirable,  because  it  could  not  ob 
tain  a  majority  and  could  not  therefore  force  its  will 
upon  the  community  at  large."  This  view,  Mr.  Mitch- 


THE   DEVELOPMENT  OF   CAPITALISM      251 

ell  admitted,  was  merely  temporary  and  due  to  circum 
stances,  for  he  frankly  said :  "  Should  it  come  to  pass  that 
the  two  great  American  political  parties  oppose  labor 
legislation  as  they  now  favor  it,  it  would  be  the  imperative 
duty  of  unionists  to  form  a  third  party  to  secure  some 
measure  of  reform."  This  was  also  substantially  the 
position  taken  by  the  President  of  the  American  Federa 
tion,  Mr.  Gompers. 

But  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  American  Federa 
tion  of  Labor  refused  to  consider  the  question  of  labor  in 
politics.  Its  prominent  leaders  were  affiliated  with  the 
American  Civic  Federation,  composed  largely  of  em 
ployers  of  labor,  professional  men,  and  philanthropists, 
and  known  as  one  of  the  most  powerful  anti-socialist  or 
ganizations  in  the  United  States.  Not  only  were  Mr. 
Gompers  and  other  labor  leaders  associated  with  this 
society  which  strongly  opposed  the  formation  of  a  class 
party  in  the  United  States,  but  they  steadily  waged  war 
on  the  socialists  who  were  attempting  to  organize,  the 
working  class  politically.  The  leaders  in  the  American 
Federation,  with  a  few  exceptions,  were  thus  definitely 
anti-socialist  and  were  on  record  on  this  political  issue. 
Moreover,  while  warning  workingmen  against  political 
action,  Mr.  Gompers  and  Mr.  Mitchell  openly  identified 
themselves  with  the  Democratic  party  and  endeavored  to 
swing  the  working  class  vote  to  that  party.  Mr.  Gompers 
was  especially  active  in  the  support  of  Mr.  Bryan  in 
1908,  and  boasted  that  80  per  cent  of  the  voting  members 
of  the  Federation  cast  their  ballots  for  the  Democratic 
candidate. 

In  fact,  a^ study  of  the  writings  and  speeches  of  the 


252     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

leaders  in  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  shows  that 
they  had  a  fairly  definite  politico-economic  program, 
although  they  did  not  admit  it.  They  favored  in  general 
municipal  and  government  ownership  of  what  are  called 
"natural"  monopolies,  and  they  sympathized  with  the 
smaller  business  men  in  their  attempt  to  break  up  the 
great  industrial  corporations  against  which  organized 
labor  had  been  able  to  make  little  headway.  They  sup 
ported  all  kinds  of  labor  legislation,  such  as  a  minimum 
wage,  workmen's  compensation,  sanitary  laws  for  fac 
tories,  the  shortening  of  hours,  prohibition  of  child  labor, 
insurance  against  accidents,  sickness  and  old  age  pensions, 
and  industrial  education.  They  were  also  on  record  in 
favor  of  such  political  reforms  as  the  initiative,  referen 
dum,  and  recall,  and  they  were  especially  vigorous  in 
their  efforts  to  curtail  the  power  of  the  courts  to  issue 
injunctions  against  strikers.  In  other  words,  they 
leaned  decidedly  toward  "state  socialism"  and  expected 
to  secure  their  ends  by  supporting  the  Democratic  party, 
\  historically  the  party  of  individualism,  and  laissez  faire. 
j^  This  apparent  anomaly  is  explained  by  the  fact  that 
I  state  socialism  does  not  imply  the  political  triumph  of 
the  working  class,  but  rather  the  strengthening  of  the 
petty  bourgeoisie  against  great  capitalists. 

It  would  be  a  mistake,  however,  to  conclude  that  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor  was  solidly  in  support 
of  Mr.  Gompers'  program.  On  the  contrary,  at  each 
national  convention  of  the  Federation  the  socialist  mem 
bers  attempted  to  carry  the  organization  over  into  direct 
political  action.  These  attempts  were  defeated  each 
year,  but  close  observers  of  the  labor  movement  dis- 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF   CAPITALISM       253 

covered  that  the  socialists  were  electing  a  large  number  of 
local  and  state  trade-union  officials,  and  those  who  hope 
to  keep  the  organization  in  the  old  paths  are  anxious 
about  the  outcome  at  the  end  of  Mr.  Gompers'  long 
service. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE   ADMINISTRATIONS   OF  THEODORE   ROOSEVELT 

THE  administrations  of  Mr.  Roosevelt  cannot  be  char 
acterized  by  a  general  phrase,  although  they  will  doubt 
less  be  regarded  by  historians  as  marking  an  epoch  in 
the  political  history  of  the  United  States.  If  we  search 
for  great  and  significant  social  and  economic  legislation 
during  that  period,  we  shall  hardly  find  it,  nor  can  we 
discover  in  his  numerous  and  voluminous  messages  much 
that  is  concrete  in  spite  of  their  immense  suggestiveness. 
The  adoption  of  the  income  tax  amendment,  the  passage 
of  the  amendment  for  popular  election  of  Senators, 
the  establishment  of  parcel  post  and  postal  savings 
banks,  and  the  successful  prosecution  of  trusts  and  com 
binations,  —  all  these  achievements  belong  in  time  to 
the  administration  of  Mr.  Taft,  although  it  will  be 
claimed  by  some  that  they  were  but  a  fruition  of  plans 
laid  or  policies  advocated  by  Mr.  Roosevelt. 

One  who  attempts  to  estimate  and  evaluate  those 
eight  years  of  multifarious  activity  will  find  it  difficult 
to  separate  the  transient  and  spectacular  from  the  per 
manent  and  fundamental.  In  the  foreground  stand  the 
interference  in  the  coal  strike,  the  acquisition  of  the 
Panama  Canal  strip,  voluminous  messages  discussing 
every  aspect  of  our  complex  social  and  political  life, 
vigorous  and  spirited  interference  with  state  elections,  as 

254 


ROOSEVELT'S   ADMINISTRATIONS  255 

in  the  case  of  Mr.  Hearst's  campaign  in  New  York,  and 
in  city  politics,  as  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Burton's  contest  in 
Cleveland,  Ohio,  the  pressing  of  the  idea  of  conserving 
natural  resources  upon  the  public  mind,  acrimonious 
disputes  with  private  citizens  like  Mr.  Harriman,  and, 
finally,  the  closing  days  of  bitter  hostilities  with  Con 
gress  over  the  Tennessee  Coal  and  Iron  affair  and  ap 
propriations  for  special  detectives  to  be  at  executive 
disposal. 

Mr.  Roosevelt's  Doctrines 

During  those  years  the  country  was  much  torn  with 
the  scandals  arising  from  investigations,  such  as  the  life 
insurance  inquest  in  New  York,  which  revealed  grave 
lapses  from  the  paths  of  rectitude  on  the  part  of  men  high 
in  public  esteem,  and  gross  and  vulgar  use  of  money  in 
campaigns.  No  little  of  the  discredit  connected  with 
these  affairs  fell  upon  the  Republican  party,  not  because 
its  methods  were  shown  to  be  worse  in  general  than  those 
of  the  Democrats,  but  because  it  happened  to  be  in 
power.  The  great  task  of  counteracting  this  discontent 
fell  upon  Mr.  Roosevelt,  who  smote  with  many  a  message 
the  money  changers  in  the  temple  of  his  own  party,  and 
convinced  a  large  portion  of  the  country  that  he  had  not 
only  driven  them  out  but  had  refused  all  association 
with  them. 

Mr.  Roosevelt  was  thus  quick  to  catch  the  prevailing 
public  temper.  "It  makes  not  a  particle  of  difference," 
he  said  in  1907,  "whether  these  crimes  are  committed 
by  a  capitalist  or  by  a  laborer,  by  a  leading  banker  or 


256      CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

manufacturer  or  railroad  man,  or  by  a  leading  represent 
ative  of  a  labor  union.  Swindling  in  stocks,  corrupting 
legislatures,  making  fortunes  by  the  inflation  of  securities, 
by  wrecking  railroads,  by  destroying  competitors  through 
rebates,  —  these  forms  of  wrongdoing  in  the  capitalist 
are  far  more  infamous  than  any  ordinary  form  of  em 
bezzlement  or  forgery.  .  .  .  The  business  man  who  con 
dones  such  conduct  stands  on  a  level  with  the  labor  man 
who  deliberately  supports  a  corrupt  demagogue  and 
agitator." 

Any  one  who  takes  the  trouble  to  examine  with  care 
Mr.  Roosevelt's  messages  and  other  public  utterances 
during  the  period  of  his  administration  will  discover  the 
elements  of  many  of  his  policies  which  later  took  more 
precise  form. 

In  his  first  message  to  Congress,  on  December  3, 1901, 
Mr.  Roosevelt  gave  considerable  attention  to  trusts  and 

f  collateral  economic  problems.  He  refused  to  concede 
the  oft-repeated  claim  that  great  fortunes  were  the  prod- 

\uct  of  special  legal  privileges.  "The  creation  of  these 
great  corporate  fortunes,"  he  said,  "has  not  been  due  to 
the  tariff  nor  to  any  other  governmental  action,  but  to 
natural  causes  in  the  business  world,  operating  in  other 
countries  as  they  operate  in  our  own.  The  process  has 
aroused  much  antagonism,  a  great  part  of  which  is 
wholly  without  warrant.  It  is  not  true  that  as  the  rich 
have  grown  richer,  the  poor  have  grown  poorer.  On  the 
contrary,  never  before  has  the  average  man,  the  wage 
worker,  the  farmer,  the  small  trader,  been  so  well  off  as 
in  this  country  at  the  present  time.  There  have  been 


ROOSEVELT'S  ADMINISTRATIONS  257 

abuses  connected  with  the  accumulation  of  wealth-;  yet 
it  remains  true  that  a  fortune  accumulated  in  legitimate 
business  can  be  accumulated  by  the  person  specially  ben- 
efitted  only  on  condition  of  conferring  immense  inci 
dental  benefits  upon  others." 

While  thus  contending  that  large  fortunes  in  the  main 
were  the  product  of  " natural  economic  forces,"  Mr. 
Roosevelt  admitted  that  some  grave  evils  had  arisen 
in  connection  with  combinations  and  trusts,  and  fore 
shadowed  in  his  proposed  remedial  legislation  the  policy 
of  regulation  and  new  nationalism.  "When  the  Con 
stitution  was  adopted,  at  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  cen 
tury,  no  human  wisdom  could  foretell  the  sweeping 
changes,  alike  in  industrial  and  political  conditions,  which 
were  to  take  place  by  the  beginning  of  the  twentieth 
century.  At  that  time  it  was  accepted  as  a  matter  of 
course  that  the  several  states  were  the  proper  authorities 
to  regulate  .  .  .  the  comparatively  insignificant  and 
strictly  localized  corporate  bodies  of  the  day.  The 
conditions  are  now  wholly  different,  and  a  wholly  differ 
ent  action  is  called  for."  The  remedy  he  proposed  was 
publicity  for  corporate  affairs,  the  regulation,  not  the 
prohibition,  of  great  combinations,  the  elimination  of 
specific  abuses  such  as  overcapitalization,  and  govern 
ment  supervision.  If  the  powers  of  Congress,  under  the 
Constitution,  were  inadequate,  then  a  constitutional 
amendment  should  be  submitted  conferring  the  proper 
power.  The  Interstate  Commerce  Act  should  likewise 
be  amended.  "The  railway  is  a  public  servant.  Its 
rates  should  be  just  to  and  open  to  all  shippers  alike. 
The  Government  should  see  to  it  that  within  its  juris- 
s 


258     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

diction  this  is  so."  Conservation  of  natural  resources, 
irrigation  plans,  the  creation  of  a  department  of  Com 
merce  and  Labor,  army  and  navy  reform,  and  the  con 
struction  of  the  Panama  Canal  were  also  recommended 
at  the  same  time  (1901). 

In  this  message,  nearly  all  of  Mr.  Roosevelt's  later 
policies  as  President  are  presaged,  and  in  it  also  are 
marked  the  spirit  and  phraseology  which  have  done  so 
much  to  make  him  the  idol  of  the  American  middle  class, 
and  particularly  of  the  social  reformer.  There  are,  for 
instance,  many  little  aphorisms  which  appeal  to  the 
moral  sentiments.  "When  all  is  said  and  done,"  he 
says,  "the  rule  of  brotherhood  remains  as  the  indispen 
sable  prerequisite  to  success  in  the  kind  of  national  life 
for  which  we  are  to  strive.  Each  man  must  work  for 
himself,  and  unless  he  so  works  no  outside  help  can  avail 
him ;  but  each  man  must  remember  also  that  he  is  in 
deed  his  brother's  keeper,  and  that,  while  no  man  who 
refuses  to  walk  can  be  carried  with  advantage  to  himself 
or  any  one  else,  yet  each  at  times  stumbles  or  halts,  each 
at  times  needs  to  have  the  helping  hand  outstretched  to 
him."  The  "reckless  agitator"  and  anarchist  are  dealt 
with  in  a  summary  fashion,  and  emphasis  is  laid  on  the 
primitive  virtues  of  honesty,  sobriety,  industry,  and  self- 
restraint.  The  new  phrases  of  the  social  reformer  also 
appear  side  by  side  with  the  exclamations  of  virtuous 
indignation:  "social  betterment,"  "sociological  law," 
"  rule  of  brotherhood,"  "high  aims,"  "foolish  visionary," 
"equity  between  man  and  man"  -in  fact  the  whole 
range  of  the  terminology  of  social  "uplift." 

None  of  Mr.  Roosevelt's  later  messages  added  any- 


ROOSEVELT'S  ADMINISTRATIONS  259 

thing  new  by  way  of  economic  doctrine  or  moral  prin 
ciple.  The  same  notions  recurred  again  and  again,  often 
in  almost  identical  language  and  frequently  in  the  form 
of  long  quotations  from  previous  messages.  But  there 
appeared  from  time  to  time  different  concrete  proposals, 
elaborating  those  already  suggested  to  Congress.  The 
tariff  he  occasionally  touched  upon,  but  never  at  great 
length  or  with  much  emphasis.  He  frequently  re 
iterated  the  doctrine  that  the  country  was  committed 
to  protection,  that  the  tariff  was  not  responsible  for  the 
growth  of  combinations  and  trusts,  and  that  no  economic 
question  of  moment  could  be  solved  by  its  revision  or 
abandonment. 

As  to  the  trusts,  Mr.  Roosevelt  consistently  main 
tained  the  position  which  he  had  taken  as  governor  of 
New  York  and  had  stated  in  his  first  message ;  namely, 
that  most  of  the  legislation  against  trusts  was  futile 
and  that  publicity  and  governmental  supervision  were 
the  only  methods  of  approaching  the  question  which  the 
logic  of  events  admitted.  In  his  message  of  December, 
1907,  he  said:  "The  anti-trust  law  should  not  be  re 
pealed  ;  but  it  should  be  made  more  efficient  and  more  in 
harmony  with  actual  conditions .  It  should  be  so  amended 
as  to  forbid  only  the  kind  of  combination  which  does 
harm  to  the  general  public,  such  amendment  to  be  ac 
companied  by,  or  to  be  an  incident  of,  a  grant  of  super 
visory  power  to  the  Government  over  these  big  concerns 
engaged  in  interstate  business.  This  should  be  accom 
panied  by  provision  for  the  compulsory  publication  of 
accounts  and  the  subjection  of  books  and  papers  to  the 
inspection  of  the  Government  officials.  .  .  .  The  Con- 


260     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

gress  has  the  power  to  charter  corporations  to  engage  in 
interstate  and  foreign  commerce,  and  a  general  law  can 
be  enacted  under  the  provisions  of  which  existing  cor 
porations  could  take  out  federal  charters  and  new  federal 
corporations  could  be  created.  An  essential  provision  of 
such  a  law  should  be  a  method  of  predetermining  by 
some  federal  board  or  commission  whether  the  applicant 
for  a  federal  charter  was  an  association  or  combination 
within  the  restrictions  of  the  federal  law.  Provision 
should  also  be  made  for  complete  publicity  in  all  matters 
affecting  the  public,  and  complete  protection  to  the  in 
vesting  public  and  the  shareholders  in  the  matter  of 
issuing  corporate  securities.  If  an  incorporation  law  is 
not  deemed  advisable,  a  license  act  for  big  interstate  cor 
porations  might  be  enacted ;  or  a  combination  of  the 
two  might  be  tried.  The  supervision  established  might 
be  analogous  to  that  now  exercised  over  national  banks. 
At  least,  the  anti-trust  act  should  be  supplemented  by 
specific  prohibitions  of  the  methods  which  experience 
has  shown  have  been  of  most  service  in  enabling  mo 
nopolistic  combinations  to  crush  out  competition.  The 
real  owners  of  a  corporation  should  be  compelled  to  do 
business  in  their  own  name.  The  right  to  hold  stock  in 
other  corporations  should  be  denied  to  interstate  cor 
porations,  unless  on  approval  by  the  proper  Government 
officials,  and  a  prerequisite  to  such  approval  should  be 
the  listing  with  the  Government  of  all  owners  and  stock 
holders,  both  by  the  corporation  owning  such  stock  and 
by  the  corporation  in  which  such  stock  is  owned." 

With  that  prescience  which  characterized  his  political 
career  from  his  entrance  into  politics,  Mr.  Roosevelt 


ROOSEVELT'S  ADMINISTRATIONS  261 

foresaw  that  it  was  impossible  for  capitalists  in  the 
United  States  to  postpone  those  milder  reforms,  such  as 
employers'  liability,  which  had  been  accepted  in  the  en 
lightened  countries  of  Europe  long  before  the  close  of 
the  nineteenth  century.  In  his  message  of  December  3, 
1907,  he  pointed  out  that  "the  number  of  accidents  to 
wage-workers,  including  those  that  are  preventable  and 
those  that  are  not,  has  become  appalling  in  the  me 
chanical,  manufacturing  and  transportation  operations  of 
the  day.  It  works  grim  hardship  to  the  ordinary  wage- 
worker  and  his  family  to  have  the  effect  of  such  an  ac 
cident  fall  solely  upon  him."  Mr.  Roosevelt  thereupon 
recommended  the  strengthening  of  the  employers'  lia 
bility  law  which  had  been  recently  passed  by  Congress, 
and  urged  upon  that  body  "  the  enactment  of  a  law  which 
will  .  .  .  bring  federal  legislation  up  to  the  standard 
already  established  by  all  European  countries,  and 
which  will  serve  as  a  stimulus  to  the  various  states  to 
perfect  their  legislation  in  this  regard." 

As  has  been  pointed  out  above,  Mr.  Roosevelt,  in  all 
of  his  recommendations,  took  the  ground  that  the  pre 
vailing  system  of  production  and  distribution  of  wealth 
was  essentially  sound,  that  substantial  justice  was  now 
being  worked  out  between  man  and  man,  and  that  only 
a  few  painful  excrescences  needed  to  be  lopped  off. 
Only  on  one  occasion,  it  seems,  did  he  advise  the  adoption 
of  any  measures  affecting  directly  the  distribution  of 
acquired  wealth.  In  his  message  of  December  3,  1907, 
he  declared  that  when  our  tax  laws  were  revised,  the 
question  of  inheritance  and  income  taxes  should  be 
carefully  considered.  He  spoke  with  diffidence  of  the 


262      CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

latter  because  of  the  difficulties  of  evasion  involved,  and 
the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  1895.  " Never 
theless,"  he  said,  "a  graduated  income  tax  of  the  proper 
type  would  be  a  desirable  feature  of  federal  taxation, 
and  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  one  may  be  devised  which  the 
Supreme  Court  will  declare  constitutional."  The  in 
heritance  tax  was,  in  his  opinion,  however,  preferable ; 
such  a  tax  had  been  upheld  by  the  Court  and  was  "far 
more  important  for  the  purpose  of  having  the  fortunes 
of  the  country  bear  in  proportion  to  their  increase  in  size 
a  corresponding  increase  and  burden  of  taxation."  He 
accordingly  approved  the  principle  of  a  progressive  in 
heritance  tax,  increasing  to  perhaps  25  per  cent  in  the 
case  of  distant  relatives. 

While  advocating  social  reforms  and  castigating  wrong 
doers  at  home,  Mr.  Roosevelt  was  equally  severe  in 
dealing  with  Latin-American  states  which  failed  to 
discharge  their  obligations  to  other  countries  faithfully. 
In  his  message  of  December,  1905,  he  said:  "We  must 
make  it  evident  that  we  do  not  intend  to  permit  the 
Monroe  doctrine  to  be  used  by  any  nation  on  this  con 
tinent  as  a  shield  to  protect  it  from  the  consequences  of 
its  own  misdeeds  against  foreign  nations.  If  a  republic 
to  the  south  of  us  commits  a  tort  against  a  foreign 
nation,  such  as  an  outrage  against  a  citizen  of  that 
nation,  then  the  Monroe  doctrine  does  not  force  us  to 
interfere  to  prevent  the  punishment  of  the  tort,  save  to 
see  that  the  punishment  does  not  assume  the  form  of 
territorial  occupation  in  any  shape.  The  case  is  more 
difficult  when  it  refers  to  a  contractual  obligation.  .  .  . 
The  country  would  certainly  decline  to  go  to  war  to 


ROOSEVELT'S  ADMINISTRATIONS  263 

prevent  a  foreign  government  from  collecting  a  just 
debt ;  on  the  other  hand  it  is  very  inadvisable  to  permit 
any  foreign  power  to  take  possession,  even  temporarily, 
of  the  custom  houses  of  an  American  republic  in  order  to 
enforce  the  payment  of  its  obligations ;  for  such  a  tem 
porary  occupation  might  turn  into  a  permanent  occupa 
tion.  The  only  escape  from  these  alternatives  may  at 
any  time  be  that  we  must  ourselves  undertake  to  bring 
about  some  arrangement  by  which  so  much  as  possible 
of  a  just  obligation  shall  be  paid." 

Mr.  Roosevelt's  messages  and  various  activities  while 
he  was  serving  the  unexpired  term  of  President  McKinley 
upset  all  of  the  conservative  traditions  of  the  executive 
office.  He  intervened,  without  power,  in  the  anthracite 
coal  strike  of  1902,  and  had  the  satisfaction  of  seeing  the 
miners  make  substantial  gains  at  the  hands  of  a  com 
mission  appointed  by  himself,  to  which  the  contestants 
had  agreed  to  submit  the  issues.  He  began  a  prosecution 
of  the  Northern  Securities  Company  at  a  time  when  such 
actions  against  great  combinations  of  capital  were  un 
fashionable.  He  forced  an  investigation  of  the  post- 
office  administration  in  1903,  which  revealed  frauds  of 
huge  dimensions;  and  he  gave  the  administration  of 
public  lands  a  turning  over  which  led  to  the  successful 
criminal  prosecution  of  two  United  States  Senators. 
Citizens  acquired  the  habit  of  looking  to  the  headlines 
of  the  morning  paper  for  some  new  and  startling  activity 
on  the  part  of  the  President.  Politicians  of  the  old 
school  in  both  parties,  who  had  been  used  to  settling 
difficulties  by  quiet  conferences  within  the  "organiza- 


264     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

tion,"  stood  aghast.  They  did  not  like  Mr.  Roosevelt's 
methods  which  they  characterized  as  "erratic";  but 
the  death  of  Mr.  Hanna  in  February,  1904,  took  away 
the  only  forceful  leader  who  might  have  consolidated 
the  opposition  within  Republican  ranks. 

The  Campaign  of  1904 

Nevertheless  the  rumor  was  vigorously  circulated 
that  Mr.  Roosevelt  was  violently  opposed  by  "Wall 
Street  and  the  Trusts."  Whatever  may  have  been  the 
source  of  this  rumor  it  only  enhanced  the  President's 
popularity.  In  December,  1903,  Senator  O.  H.  Platt 
wrote :  "I  do  not  know  how  much  importance  to  attach 
to  the  current  opposition  to  Roosevelt  by  what  are  called 
the  '  corporate  and  money  influences '  in  New  York.  .  .  . 
There  is  a  great  deal  said  about  it,  as  if  it  were  wide 
spread  and  violent.  I  know  that  it  does  not  include  the 
whole  of  that  class  of  people,  because  I  know  many 
bankers  and  capitalists,  railroad  and  business  men  who 
are  his  strong,  good  friends,  and  they  are  not  among  the 
smaller  and  weaker  parties,  either.  .  .  .  Now  it  is  a 
great  mistake  for  capitalistic  interests  to  oppose  Roose 
velt.  ...  I  think  he  will  be  nominated  by  acclamation, 
so  what  is  to  be  gained  by  the  Wall  Street  contingent  and 
the  railroad  interests  in  this  seeming  opposition  to 
him  ?  .  .  .  There  is  no  Republican  in  the  United  States 
who  can  be  elected  except  Roosevelt.  .  .  .  He  is  going 
to  be  the  people's  candidate,  not  the  candidate  of  the 
trusts  or  of  the  hoodlums,  but  of  the  conservative 
elements." 


ROOSEVELT'S  ADMINISTRATIONS  265 

The  Republican  convention  in  1904  was  uneventful 
beyond  measure.  Though  Mr.  Roosevelt  was  disliked 
by  many  members  of  his  party,  his  nomination  was 
unavoidable,  and  even  his  opponents  abstained  from 
any  word  or  deed  that  might  have  disturbed  the  concord 
of  the  occasion.  The  management  of  the  convention 
was  principally  in  the  hands  of  the  men  from  whom  Mr. 
Roosevelt  afterward  broke  and  stigmatized  as  "reaction 
ary."  Mr.  Elihu  Root  was  temporary  chairman,  Mr. 
Joseph  G.  Cannon  was  permanent  chairman,  Mr. 
Henry  Cabot  Lodge  was  chairman  of  the  committee  on 
resolutions  which  reported  the  platform,  Mr.  W.  M. 
Crane  and  Mr.  Boies  Penrose  were  selected  as  members 
of  the  national  committee  from  their  respective  states, 
and  Mr.  Frank  S.  Black,  of  New  York,  made  the  speech 
nominating  Mr.  Roosevelt.  Throughout,  the  proceed 
ings  were  harmonious;  the  platform  and  the  nomi 
nation  were  accepted  vociferously  without  a  dissenting 
vote. 

The  Republican  platform  of  1904  gave  no  recognition 
of  any  of  the  newer  social  and  economic  problems  which 
were  soon  to  rend  that  party  in  twain.  After  the  fashion 
of  announcements  made  by  parties  already  in  power,  it 
laid  great  emphasis  upon  Republican  achievements 
since  the  great  victory  of  1896.  A  protective  tariff 
under  which  all  industries  had  revived  and  prospered 
had  been  enacted;  public  credit  was  now  restored, 
Cuban  independence  established,  peace,  freedom,  order, 
and  prosperity  given  to  Porto  Rico,  the  Philippine 
Islands  endowed  with  the  largest  civil  liberty  ever  en 
joyed  there,  the  laws  against  unjust  discriminations  by 


266     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

vast  aggregations  of  capital  fearlessly  enforced,  and  the 
gold  standard  upheld.  The  program  of  positive  action 
included  nothing  new:  extension  of  foreign  markets, 
encouragement  of  American  shipping,  enforcement  of 
the  Fourteenth  Amendment  wherever  the  suffrage  had 
been  curtailed,  and  indorsement  of  civil  service,  in 
ternational  arbitration,  and  liberal  pensions.  The  trust 
plank  was  noncommittal  as  to  concrete  policy:  "Com 
binations  of  capital  and  of  labor  are  the  results  of  the 
economic  movement  of  the  age,  but  neither  must  be 
permitted  to  infringe  the  rights  and  interests  of  the 
people.  Such  combinations,  when  lawfully  formed  for 
lawful  purposes,  are  alike  entitled  to  the  protection  of 
the  laws,  but  both  are  subject  to  the  laws  and  neither 
can  be  permitted  to  break  them." 

In  their  campaign  book  for  1904,  the  Republican 
leaders  exhibited  Mr.  Roosevelt  as  the  ideal  American 
in  a  superlative  degree.  "Theodore  Roosevelt's  char 
acter,"  runs  the  eulogy,  "is  no  topic  for  difference  of 
opinion  or  for  party  controversy.  It  is  without  mystery 
or  concealment.  It  has  the  primary  qualities  that  in 
all  ages  have  been  admired  and  respected:  physical 
prowess,  great  energy  and  vitality,  straightforwardness 
and  moral  courage,  promptness  in  action,  talent  for 
leadership.  .  .  .  Theodore  Roosevelt,  as  a  typical 
personality,  has  won  the  hearty  confidence  of  the  Ameri 
can  people ;  and  he  has  not  shrunk  from  recognizing  and 
using  his  influence  as  an  advocate  of  the  best  standards 
of  personal,  domestic,  and  civic  life  in  the  country.  He 
has  made  these  things  relating  to  life  and  conduct  a 
favorite  theme  in  speech  and  essay  and  he  has  diligently 


ROOSEVELT'S  ADMINISTRATIONS  267 

practiced  what  he  preached.  Thus  he  has  become  a 
power  for  wholesomeness  in  every  department  of  our 
life  as  a  people." 

The  Democratic  nominee,  Mr.  Alton  B.  Parker,  failed 
to  elicit  any  enthusiasm  in  the  rank  and  file  of  the  party. 
He  had  supported  the  Democratic  candidate  at  a  time 
when  many  of  his  conservative  friends  had  repudiated 
Mr.  Bryan  altogether,  and  thus  he  could  not  be  branded 
as  a  "bolter."  But  Mr.  Parker's  long  term  of  service 
as  judge  of  the  highest  court  of  New  York,  his  remote 
ness  from  actual  partisan  controversies,  his  refusal  to 
plunge  into  a  whirlwind  stumping  campaign,  and  his 
dignified  reserve,  all  combined  to  prevent  his  getting  a 
grip  upon  the  popular  imagination.  His  weakness  was 
further  increased  by  the  half-hearted  support  given  by 
Mr.  Bryan  who  openly  declared  the  party  to  be  under 
the  control  of  the  "Wall  Street  element,"  but  confessed 
that  he  intended  to  give  his  vote  to  Mr.  Parker,  although 
the  latter,  in  a  telegram  to  the  nominating  convention 
at  St.  Louis,  had  announced  his  unflinching  adherence 
to  the  gold  standard. 

The  Democratic  platform,  except  in  its  denunciation 
of  the  Republican  administration,  was  as  indefinite 
as  the  occasion  demanded.  Independence  should  be 
promised  to  the  Filipinos  at  the  proper  time  and  under 
proper  circumstances;  there  should  be  a  revision  and 
gradual  reduction  of  the  tariff  by  "the  friends  of  the 
masses";  United  States  Senators  should  be  elected  by 
popular  vote;  combinations  and  trusts  which  restrict 
competition,  control  production,  or  fix  prices  and  wages 


268     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

should  be  forbidden  and  punished  by  law.  The  ad 
ministration  of  Mr.  Roosevelt  was  denounced  as  "  spas 
modic,  erratic,  sensational,  spectacular,  and  arbitrary, " 
and  the  proposal  of  the  Republican  platform  to  enforce 
the  Fourteenth  Amendment  was  condemned  as  "  Bour 
bon-like,  selfish,  and  narrow,"  and  designed  to  kindle 
anew  the  embers  of  racial  and  sectional  strife.  Con 
stitutional,  simple,  and  orderly  government  was  prom 
ised,  affording  no  sensations,  offering  no  organic  changes 
in  the  political  or  economic  structure,  and  making  no 
departures  from  the  government  "as  framed  and  es 
tablished  by  the  fathers  of  the  Republic." 

The  only  extraordinary  incident  in  the  campaign  of 
1904  occurred  toward  the  closing  days,  when  Mr.  Parker 
repeatedly  charged  that  the  Republican  party  was  being 
financed  by  contributions  from  corporations  and  trust 
magnates.  The  Democratic  candidate  also  declared 
that  Mr.  Cortelyou,  as  Secretary  of  Commerce  and 
Labor,  had  acquired  through  the  use  of  official  inquisi 
torial  powers  inside  information  as  to  the  practices  of 
trusts,  and  that  as  chairman  of  the  Republican  national 
committee,  he  had  used  his  special  knowledge  to  extort 
contributions  from  corporations.  These  corrupt  and 
debasing  methods  had,  in  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Parker, 
threatened  the  integrity  of  the  republic  and  transformed 
the  government  of  the  people  into  "a  government  whose 
officers  are  practically  chosen  by  a  handful  of  corporate 
managers,  who  levy  upon  the  assets  of  the  stockholders 
whom  they  represent  such  sums  of  money  as  they  deem 
requisite  to  place  the  conduct  of  the  Government  in 


ROOSEVELT'S  ADMINISTRATIONS  269 

such  hands  as  they  consider  best  for  their  private 
interests." 

These  grave  charges  were  made  as  early  as  October  24, 
and  it  was  expected  that  Mr.  Cortelyou  would  reply 
immediately,  particularly  as  Mr.  Parker  was  repeating 
and  amplifying  them.  However,  no  formal  answer  came 
until  November  5,  three  days  before  the  election,  when 
a  countercharge  was  impossible.  On  that  date  Mr. 
Roosevelt  issued  a  signed  statement,  analyzing  the 
charges  of  his  opponent,  and  closing  with  the  positive 
declaration  that  "the  statements  made  by  Mr.  Parker 
are  unqualifiedly  and  atrociously  false." 

No  doubt  it  would  have  been  difficult  for  Mr.  Parker 
to  have  substantiated  many  of  the  details  in  his  charges, 
but  the  general  truth  of  his  contention  that  the  Repub 
lican  campaign  was  financed  by  railway  and  trust  mag 
nates  was  later  established  by  the  life  insurance  investiga 
tion  in  New  York  in  1905,  by  the  exposures  of  trust 
methods  by  Mr.  Hearst  in  the  publication  of  Standard 
Oil  Letters,  and  by  the  revelations  made  before  the  Clapp 
committee  of  the  Senate  in  1912.  It  is  true,  Mr.  Roose 
velt  asserted  that  he  knew  nothing  personally  about  the 
corporation  contributions,  particularly  the  Standard 
Oil  gifts,  and  although  he  convinced  his  friends  of  his 
entire  innocence  in  the  matter,  seasoned  politicians 
could  hardly  understand  a  naivete  so  far  outside  the 
range  of  their  experience. 

The  Democratic  candidate  and  his  friends  took  open 
pleasure  in  the  discomfiture  produced  in  Republican 
ranks  by  these  unpleasant  revelations,  but  no  Kttle 
bitterness  was  added  to  their  cup  of  joy  by  the  other  side 


270      CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

of  the  story.  During  the  life  insurance  investigation 
one  of  the  life  insurance  officers  declared :  "My  life  was 
made  weary  by  the  Democratic  candidates  chasing  for 
money  in  that  campaign.  Some  of  the  very  men  who 
to-day  are  being  interviewed  in  the  papers  as  denounc 
ing  the  men  who  contribute  to  campaigns,  —  their 
shadows  were  crossing  my  path  every  step  I  took." 
Later,  before  the  Clapp  committee  in  1912,  Mr.  August 
Belmont  and  Mr.  T.  F.  Ryan,  corporation  magnates 
with  wide-reaching  financial  interests,  —  the  latter  par 
ticularly  famous  for  his  Tobacco  Trust  affiliations,  — 
testified  that  they  had  underwritten  Mr.  Parker's  cam 
paign  to  the  amount  of  several  hundred  thousand 
dollars.  Independent  newspapers  remarked  that  it 
seemed  to  be  another  case  of  the  kettle  and  the  pot. 

That  the  conservative  interests  looked  to  the  Repub 
lican  party,  if  not  to  Mr.  Roosevelt,  for  the  preservation 
of  good  order  in  politics  and  the  prevention  of  radical 
legislation,  is  shown  by  the  campaign  contributions  on 
the  part  of  those  who  had  earlier  financed  Mr.  Hanna. 
In  1907  a  letter  from  the  railroad  magnate,  Mr.  E.  H. 
Harriman,  was  made  public,  in  which  the  writer  declared 
that  Mr.  Roosevelt  had  invited  him  to  Washington  in 
the  autumn  of  1904,  just  before  the  election,  that  at  the 
President's  request  he  had  raised  $250,000  to  help  carry 
New  York  state,  and  that  he  had  paid  the  money  over 
to  the  Republican  treasurer,  Mr.  Bliss.  Mr.  Roosevelt 
indignantly  denied  that  he  had  requested  Mr.  Harriman 
to  raise  a  dollar  for  "the  Presidential  campaign  of 
1904."  It  will  be  noted  that  Mr.  Roosevelt  here  made 
a  distinction  between  the  state  and  national  campaign. 


ROOSEVELT'S  ADMINISTRATIONS  271 

This  distinction  he  again  drew  during  the  United  States 
Senate  investigation  in  1912,  when  it  became  apparent 
that  the  Standard  Oil  Trust  had  made  a  large  contribu 
tion  to  the  Republican  politicians  in  1904.  From  his 
testimony,  it  would  appear  that  Mr.  Roosevelt  was  un 
aware  of  the  economic  forces  which  carried  him  to  vic 
tory  in  1904.  Indeed,  from  the  election  returns,  he  was 
justified  in  regarding  his  victory  as  a  foregone  conclusion, 
even  if  the  financiers  of  the  party  had  not  taken  such 
extensive  precautions. 

The  election  returns  in  1904  showed  that  the  Demo 
cratic  candidate  had  failed  to  engage  the  enthusiasm  of 
his  party,  for  the  vote  cast  for  him  was  .more  than  a 
million  and  a  quarter  short  of  that  cast  for  Mr.  Bryan  in 
1900.  The  personal  popularity  of  Mr.  Roosevelt  was 
fully  evidenced  in  the  electoral  and  popular  votes.  Of 
the  former  he  secured  336  against  140  cast  for  his 
opponent,  and  of  the  latter  he  polled  nearly  400,000 
more  than  Mr.  McKinley.  Nevertheless  the  total  vote 
throughout  the  country  was  nearly  half  a  million  under 
that  of  1900,  showing  an  undoubted  apathy  or  a  dissatis 
faction  with  the  two  old  parties.  This  dissatisfaction 
was  further  demonstrated  in  a  startling  way  by  the 
heavy  increase  in  the  socialist  ranks,  a  jump  from  about 
95,000  in  1900  to  more  than  400,000. 

The  Achievements  of  Mr.  Roosevelt's  Administrations 

Doubtless  the  most  significant  of  all  the  laws  enacted 
during  Mr.  Roosevelt's  administrations  was  the  Hepburn  • 
Act  passed  in  1906.     This  law  increased  the  number  of 


272      CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission 1  to  seven,  ex 
tended  the  law  to  cover  pipe  lines,  express  companies, 
and  sleeping  car  companies,  and  bridges,  ferries,  and 
railway  terminals.  It  gave  the  Interstate  Commerce 
Commission  the  power  to  reduce  a  rate  found  to  be  un 
reasonable  or  discriminatory  in  cases  in  which  complaints 
were  filed  by  shippers  adversely  affected;  it  abolished 
" midnight  tariffs"  under  which  favored  shippers  had 
been  given  special  rates,  by  requiring  proper  notice  of  all 
changes  in  schedules ; « and  it  fbrbade  common  carriers  to 
engage  in  the  transportation  of  commodities  owned  by 
themselves,  except  for  their  own  proper  uses. 

The  Hepburn  bill,  however,  did  not  confer  upon  the 
Interstate  Commerce  Commission  that  power  over  rates 
which  the  Commission  had  long  been  urging  as  necessary 
to  give  shippers  the  relief  they  expected.  Senator  La 
Follette,  fresh  from  a  fight  with  the  railways  in  Wisconsin, 
proposed  several  radical  amendments  in  the  Senate,  and 
endeavored  without  avail  to  secure  the  open  support 
of  President  Roosevelt.2  The  Senator  insisted  that  it 
would  be  possible  under  the  Hepburn  bill  "for  the  com 
mission  to  determine  whether  rates  were  relatively  reason 
able,  but  not  that  they  were  reasonable  per  se;  that  one 
rate  could  be  compared  with  another,  but  that  the  Com 
mission  had  no  means  of  determining  whether  either 
rate  so  compared  was  itself  a  reasonable  rate."  No  one 
can  tell,  urged  the  Senator,  whether  a  rate  is  reasonable 
until  the  railway  in  question  has  been  evaluated.  This 
point  he  pressed  with  great  insistence,  and  though  de 
feated  at  the  time,  he  had  the  consolation  of  having  the 

1  See  above,  p.  133.  2  La  Follette,  Autobiography,  399  ff. 


ROOSEVELT'S   ADMINISTRATIONS  273 

principle  of  physical  valuation  enacted  into  law  in  19 13.* 
At  all  events,  the  railways  found  little  or  no  fault  with 
the  Hepburn  law,  and  shortly  afterward  began  to  raise 
their  rates  in  the  face  of  strong  opposition  from  shippers. 

Two  laws  relative  to  foodstuffs,  the  meat  inspection 
act  and  the  pure  food  act,  were  passed  in  1906  in  response 
to  the  popular  demand  for  protection  against  diseased 
meats  and  deleterious  foods  and  drugs  —  a  demand 
created  largely  by  the  revelation  of  shocking  conditions 
in  the  Chicago  stockyards  and  of  nefarious  practices  on 
the  part  of  a  large  number  of  manufacturers.  The  first 
of  the  measures  was  intended  to  guarantee  that  the  meat 
shipped  in  interstate  commerce  should  be  derived  from 
animals  which  were  sound  at  the  time  of  slaughter, 
prepared  under  sanitary  conditions  in  the  packing  houses, 
and  adequately  inspected  by  Federal  employees.  The 
second  measure  covered  foods  and  drugs,  and  provided 
that  such  articles  "must  not  contain  any  injurious  or 
deleterious  drug,  chemical  or  preservative,  and  that  the 
label  on  each  package  must  state  the  exact  facts  and  not 
be  misleading  or  false  in  any  particular."  The  effect 
of  the  last  of  these  measures  was  felt  in  the  extinction 
of  a  large  number  of  patent  medicine  and  other  quasi- 
fraudulent  concerns  engaged  in  interstate  trade. 

The  social  legislation  enacted  during  Mr.  Roosevelt's 
administrations  is  not  very  extensive,  although  it  was  ac 
companied  by  much  discussion  at  the  time.  The  most 

1  The  law  ordered  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  to  ascertain 

the  cost  of  the  construction  of  all  interstate  railways,  the  cost  of  their 

reconstruction  at  the  present  time,  and  also  the  amount  of  land  and 

money  contributed  to  railways  by  national,  state,  and  local  governments. 

T 


274     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

significant  piece  of  labor  legislation  was  the  employers' 
liability  law  enacted  in  1906,  which  imposed  a  liability 
upon  common  carriers  engaged  in  interstate  commerce 
for  injuries  sustained  by  employees  in  their  service.  On 
January  6,  1908,  the  Supreme  Court  declared  the  act 
unconstitutional  on  the  ground  that  it  interblended  the 
exercise  of  legitimate  powers  over  interstate  commerce 
and  interference  with  matters  outside  the  scope  of  such 
commerce.  The  act  was  again  taken  up  in  Congress, 
and  in  April  of  that  year  a  second  law,  omitting  the  ob 
jectionable  features  pointed  out  by  the  Court,  was 
enacted. 

A  second  piece  of  Federal  legislation  which  is  com 
monly  called  a  labor  measure  was  the  law  which  went 
into  effect  on  March  4,  1908,  limiting  the  hours  of  rail 
way  employees  engaged  as  trainmen  or  telegraph  opera 
tors.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  it  was  not  so  much 
the  long  hours  of  trainmen  which  disturbed  Congress 
as  the  appalling  number  of  railway  disasters  from  which 
the  traveling  public  suffered.  At  least  it  was  so  stated 
by  the  Republican  leaders  in  their  campaign  of  1908, 
for  they  then  declared  that  "  although  the  great  object 
of  the  Act  is  to  promote  the  safety  of  travellers  upon 
railroads,  by  limiting  the  hours  of  service  of  employees 
within  reasonable  bounds,  it  is  none  the  less  true  that 
in  actual  operation  it  enforces  humane  and  considerate 
treatment  to  employees  as  well  as  greater  safety  to  the 
public."  1 

That  public  policy  with  which  Mr.  Roosevelt's  ad 
ministrations  will  be  most  closely  associated  is  unques- 

1  Campaign  Textbook,  1908,  p.  45. 


ROOSEVELT'S  ADMINISTRATIONS  275 

tionably  the  conservation  of  natural  resources.  It  is 
true  that  he  did  not  originate  it  or  secure  the  enactment 
of  any  significant  legislation  on  the  subject.  The 
matter  had  been  taken  up  in  Congress  and  out  as  early 
as  Mr.  Cleveland's  first  administration,  and  the  first 
important  law  on  conservation  was  the  act  of  March 
3,  1891,  which  authorized  the  President  to  reserve  per 
manently  as  forest  lands  such  areas  as  he  deemed  ex 
pedient.  Under  this  law  successive  Presidents  with 
drew  from  entry  enormous  areas  of  forest  lands.  This 
beginning  Mr.  Roosevelt  enlarged,  and  by  his  messages 
and  speeches,  he  brought  before  the  country  in  an  im 
pressive  and  enduring  manner  the  urgent  necessity 
of  abandoning  the  old  policy  of  drift  and  of  withholding 
from  the  clutches  of  grasping  corporations  the  meager 
domain  still  left  to  the  people.  Without  inquiring 
into  what  may  be  the  wisest  final  policy  in  the  matter 
of  our  natural  resources,  all  citizens  will  doubtless  agree 
that  Mr.  Roosevelt's  service  in  this  cause  was  valuable 
beyond  calculation. 

Among  the  proudest  achievements  of  Mr.  Roose 
velt's  administration  was  the  beginning  of  the  actual 
construction  of  the  Panama  Canal.  A  short  route  be 
tween  the  two  oceans  had  long  been  considered  by  the 
leading  commercial  nations  of  the  world.  In  1850,  by 
the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty,  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain  had  agreed  upon  the  construction  of  a  canal  by 
a  private  corporation,  under  the  supervision  of  the  two 
countries  and  other  states,  which  might  join  the  combina 
tion,  on  a  basis  of  neutralization.  The  complete  failure 
of  the  French  company  organized  by  De  Lesseps, 


276      CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

the  hero  of  the  Suez  Canal,  discouraged  all  practical 
attempts  for  a  time,  but  the  naval  advantages  of  such 
a  waterway  was  forced  upon  public  attention  in  a  dra 
matic  manner  during  the  Spanish  War  when  the  battle 
ship  Oregon  made  her  historical  voyage  around  the  Horn.1 
After  the  Spanish  War  was  over,  Mr.  John  Hay, 
Secretary  of  State,  began  the  negotiation  of  a  new  treaty 
with  Great  Britain,  which,  after  many  hitches  in  the 
process  of  coming  to  terms,  was  finally  ratified  by  the 
Senate  in  December,  1901.  This  agreement,  known  as 
the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty,  set  aside  the  old  Clayton- 
Bulwer  convention,  and  provided  that  a  canal  might, 
be  constructed  under  the  supervision  of  the  United 
States,  either  at  its  own  cost  or  by  private  enterprise 
subject  to  the  stipulated  provisions.  The  United  States 
agreed  to  adopt  certain  rules  as  the  basis  of  the  neu 
tralization  of  the  canal,  and  expressly  declared  that 
"the  canal  shall  be  free  and  open  to  the  vessels  of  com 
merce  and  of  war  of  all  nations,  observing  these  Rules, 
on  terms  of  entire  equality,  so  that  there  shall  be  no 
discrimination  against  any  such  nation,  or  its  citizens 
or  subjects,  in  respect  of  the  conditions  or  charges  of 
traffic  or  otherwise."2  A  proposal  to  forbid  the  fortifi 
cation  of  the  canal  was  omitted  from  the  final  draft, 
and  provision  was  made  for  "policing"  the  district  by 
the  United  States.  The  canal  was  thus  neutralized 
under  a  guarantee  of  the  United  States,  and  certain 
promises  were  made  in  behalf  of  that  country. 

1  See  above,  p.  209. 

2  Notwithstanding  this  arrangement,  Congress  in  1912  enacted  a  law 
exempting  American  coastwise  vessels  from  canal  tolls. 


ROOSEVELT'S  ADMINISTRATIONS  277 

The  exact  effect  of  this  treaty  was  a  subject  of  dis 
pute  from  the  outset.  On  the  one  side,  it  was  said  by 
Mr.  Latane  that  "a  unilateral  guarantee  amounts  to 
nothing ;  the  effect  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty,  there 
fore,  is  to  place  the  canal  politically  as  well  as  commer 
cially  under  the  absolute  control  of  the  United  States."  1 
On  the  other  hand,  it  was  contended  that  this  treaty 
superseded  a  mutually  binding  convention,  and  that, 
although  it  was  unilateral  in  character,  the  rules  provided 
in  it  were  solemn  obligations  binding  upon  the  con 
science  of  the  American  nation.  Whatever  may  be  the 
merits  of  this  controversy,  it  is  certain  that  the  Hay- 
Pauncefote  agreement  cleared  the  way  for  speedy  and 
positive  action  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  with 
regard  to  the  canal. 

The  great  question  then  confronting  the  country 
was  where  and  how  should  the  canal  be  built.  One 
party  favored  cutting  the  channel  through  Nicaragua, 
and  in  fact  two  national  commissions  had  reported  in 
favor  of  this  route.  Another  party  advocated  taking 
over  the  old  French  concern  and  the  construction  of  the 
waterway  through  Panama,  a  district  then  forming  a 
part  of  Colombia.  As  many  influential  Americans  had 
become  interested  in  the  rights  of  the  French  company, 
they  began  a  campaign  in  the  lobbies  of  Congress  to 
secure  the  adoption  of  that  route.  At  length  in  June, 
1902,  the  merits  of  the  Panama  case  or  the  persistency 
of  the  lobby,  or  both,  carried  through  a  law  providing 
for  the  purchase  of  the  French  company's  claims  at 
a  cost  of  not  more  than  $40,000,000  and  the  acquisition 

1  America  as  a  World  Power,  p.  207. 


278     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

of  a  canal  strip  from  the  republic  of  Colombia  —  and  fail 
ing  this  arrangement,  the  selection  of  the  Nicaragua  route. 

On  the  basis  of  this  law,  which  was  signed  June  28, 
1902,  negotiations  were  begun  with  Colombia,  but  they 
ended  in  failure  because  that  country  expected  to  secure 
better  terms  than  those  offered  by  the  United  States. 
The  Americans  who  were  interested  in  the  French 
concern  and  expected  to  make  millions  out  of  the  pur 
chase  of  property  that  was  substantially  worthless, 
were  greatly  distressed  by  the  refusal  of  Colombia  to 
ratify  the  treaty  which  had  been  negotiated.  Residents 
of  Panama  were  likewise  disturbed  at  this  delay  in  an 
enterprise  which  meant  great  prosperity  for  them,  and 
with  the  sympathy  if  not  the  support  of  the  American 
administration,  a  revolt  was  instigated  at  the  Isthmus 
and  carried  out  under  the  protection  of  American  arms 
on  November  3,  1903.  Three  days  later,  President 
Roosevelt  recognized  the  independence  of  the  new  revo 
lutionary  government.  In  his  message  in  December, 
Mr.  Roosevelt  explained  the  great  necessity  under 
which  he  labored,  and  convinced  his  friends  of  the  wis 
dom  and  justice  of  his  course. 

By  a  treaty  proclaimed  on  February  26,  1904,  be 
tween  Panama  and  the  United  States,  provision  was 
made  for  the  construction  of  the  canal.  The  independ 
ence  of  the  former  country  was  guaranteed,  and  the  latter 
obtained  "in  perpetuity  the  use,  occupation,  and  con 
trol  "  of  a  canal  zone,  and  the  right  to  construct,  main 
tain,  and  operate  the  canal  and  other  means  of 
transportation  through  the  strip.  Panama  was  paid 
$10,000,000  for  her  concession  and  promised  $250,000  a 


ROOSEVELT'S  ADMINISTRATIONS  279 

year  after  the  lapse  of  nine  years.  The  full  $40,000,000 
was  paid  over  to  the  French  concern  and  its  American 
underwriters ;  the  lock  type  instead  of  the  sea-level 
canal  was  agreed  upon  in  1906;  construction  by  pri 
vate  contractors  was  rejected  in  favor  of  public  direct 
employment  under  official  engineers ;  and  the  work  was 
pushed  forward  with  great  rapidity  in  the  hope  that  it 
might  be  completed  before  1915. 

The  country  had  not  settled  down  after  the  Panama 
affair  before  popular  interest  was  again  engaged  in  a 
diplomatic  tangle  with  Santo  Domingo.  That  petty 
republic,  on  account  of  its  many  revolutions,  had  be 
come  deeply  involved  in  debt,  and  European  creditors, 
through  their  diplomatic  agents,  had  practically  threat 
ened  the  use  of  armed  force  in  collecting  arrears,  unless 
the  United  States  would  undertake  the  supervision  of 
the  Dominican  customs  and  divide  the  revenues  in  a 
suitable  manner.  In  an  agreement  signed  in  February, 
1905,  between  the  United  States  and  Santo  Domingo, 
provisions  were  made  for  carrying  such  an  arrangement 
into  effect.  The  Senate,  having  failed  to  sanction  the 
treaty,  Mr.  Roosevelt  practically  carried  out  the  pro 
gram  unofficially  and  gave  it  substantial  support  in 
the  form  of  American  battleships. 

Against  this  independent  executive  action  there 
was  a  strong  protest  in  the  Senate.  The  spirit  of  this 
opposition  was  fully  expressed  by  Mr.  Rayner  in  a  speech 
in  that  chamber,  in  which  he  said:  "This  policy  may 
be  all  right  —  perhaps  the  American  people  are  in  favor 
of  this  new  doctrine ;  it  may  be  a  wonderful  accomplish- 


28o     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

ment  —  Central  America  may  profit  by  it ;  it  may  be 
a  great  benefit  to  us  commercially  and  it  may  be  in 
the  interest  of  civilization,  but  as  a  student  and  fol 
lower  of  the  Constitution,  I  deprecate  the  methods  that 
have  been  adopted,  and  I  appeal  to  you  to  know  whether 
we  propose  to  sit  silently  by,  and  by  our  indifference 
or  tacit  acquiescence  submit  to  a  scheme  that  ignores  the 
privileges  of  this  body ;  that  is  not  authorized  by  stat 
ute  ;  that  does  not  array  itself  within  any  of  the  functions 
of  the  Executive ;  that  vests  the  treaty-making  power 
exclusively  in  the  President,  to  whom  it  does  not  be 
long;  that  overrides  the  organic  law  of  the  land,  and 
that  virtually  proclaims  to  the  country  that,  while  the 
other  branches  of  the  Government  are  controlled  by 
the  Constitution,  the  Executive  is  above  and  beyond  it, 
and  whenever  his  own  views  or  policies  conflict  with 
it,  he  will  find  some  way  to  effectuate  his  purposes  un 
controlled  by  its  limitations." 

Notwithstanding  such  attacks  on  his  authority,  the 
President  had  not  in  fact  exceeded  his  constitutional 
rights,  and  the  boldness  and  directness  of  his  policy  found 
plenty  of  popular  support.  The  Senate  was  forced  to 
accept  the  situation  with  as  good  grace  as  possible,  and 
a  compromise  was  arranged  in  a  revised  treaty  in  Feb 
ruary,  1907,  in  which  Mr.  Roosevelt's  action  on  material 
points  received  official  sanction  from  that  authority. 
The  wisdom  of  the  policy  of  using  the  American  navy 
to  assist  European  and  other  creditors  in  collecting  their 
debts  in  Latin-American  countries  was  thoroughly 
thrashed  out,  as  well  as  the  constitutional  points  ;  and  a 
new  stage  in  the  development  of  the  Monroe  4Doctrine 


ROOSEVELT'S   ADMINISTRATIONS  281 

was  thus  reached.  Those  who  opposed  the  policy  pointed 
to  another  solution  of  the  perennial  difficulties  arising 
in  the  countries  to  the  southward ;  that  is,  the  submission 
of  pecuniary  claims  to  the  Hague  Court  or  special 
tribunals  for  arbitration.1 

Another  very  dramatic  feature  of  Mr.  Roosevelt's 
administration  was  his  action  in  bringing  Russia  and 
Japan  together  in  1905  and  thus  helping  to  terminate 
the  terrible  war  between  these  two  powers.  Among 
the  achievements  of  the  Hague  conference,  called  by 
the  Tsar  in  1899,  was  the  adoption  of  "A  Convention 
for  the  Peaceful  Adjustment  of  International  Differ 
ences"  which  provided  for  a  permanent  Court  of  Arbi 
tration,  for  international  commissions  of  inquiry  in 
disputes  arising  from  differences  of  opinion  on  facts, 
and  for  the  tendering  of  good  offices  and  mediation. 
"The  right  to  offer  good  offices  or  mediation,"  runs  the 
convention,  "belongs  to  Powers  who  are  strangers  to 
the  dispute,  even  during  the  course  of  hostilities.  The 
exercise  of  this  right  shall  never  be  considered  by  one 
or  the  other  parties  to  the  contest  as  an  unfriendly 
act." 

It  was  under  this  last  provision  that  President  Roose 
velt  dispatched  on  June  8,  1905,  after  making  proper 
inquiries,  identical  notes  to  Russia  and  Japan,  urging 
them  to  open  direct  negotiations  for  peace  with  each 
other.  The  fact  that  the  great  European  financiers 
had  already  substantially  agreed  that  the  war  must  end 
and  that  both  combatants  were  in  sore  straits  for  money, 
clearly  facilitated  the  rapidity  with  which  the  Presi- 

1  Latane,  America  as  a  World  Power,  pp.  282  ff. 


282     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

dent's  invitation  was  accepted.  In  his  identical  note, 
Mr.  Roosevelt  tendered  his  services  "in  arranging  the 
preliminaries  as  to  the  time  and  place  of  meeting,"  and 
after  some  delay  Portsmouth,  New  Hampshire,  was 
determined  upon.  The  President's  part  in  the  opening 
civilities  of  the  conference  between  the  representatives 
of  the  two  powers,  and  the  successful  outcome  of  the 
negotiations,  combined  to  make  the  affair,  in  the  popu 
lar  mind,  one  of  the  most  brilliant  achievements  of  his 
administration. 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE   REVIVAL  OF  DISSENT 

ON  the  morning  of  March  4,  1901,  when  Mr.  Mc- 
Kinley  took  the  oath  of  office  to  succeed  himself  as  Presi 
dent,  it  appeared  to  the  superficial  observer  that  the 
Populist  movement  had  spent  its  strength  and  disap 
peared.  Such  was  the  common  remark  of  the  time.  To 
discredit  a  new  proposition  it  was  only  necessary  to 
observe  that  it  was  as  dead  as  Populism.  ^Twice  had 
the  country  repudiated  Mr.  Bryan  and  his  works,  the 
second  time  even  more  emphatically  than  the  first; 
and  the  radical  ideas  which  had  been  associated  with 
his  name,  often  quite  erroneously,  seemed  to  be  per 
manently  laid  to  rest.  The  country  was  prosperous; 
it  congratulated  itself  on  the  successful  outcome  of  the 
war  with  Spain  and  accepted  the  imperialist  policies 
which  followed  with  evident  satisfaction.  Industries 
under  the  protection  of  the  Dingley  Act  and  undisturbed 
by  threats  of  legislative  interference  went  forward  with 
renewed  vigor.  Capital  began  to  reach  out  for  foreign 
markets  and  investments  as  never  before.  Statesmen 
of  Mr.  Hanna's  school  looked  upon  their  work  and 
pronounced  it  good. 

But  Populism  was  not  dead.  Defeated  in  the  field 
of  national  politics,  it  began  to  work  from  the  ground 
upward,  attacking  one  piece  of  political  machinery  after 

283 


284     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

another  and  pressing  upon  unwilling  state  legislatures 
new  forms  of  agrarian  legislation.  The  People's  party, 
at  its  convention  in  1896,  had  declared  in  favor  of  "a 
system  of  direct  legislation  through  the  initiative  and 
referendum,  under  proper  constitutional  safeguards"; 
and  Mr.  Bryan  two  years  later  announced  his  belief  in 
the  system,  saying :  "The  principle  of  the  initiative  and 
referendum  is  democratic.  It  will  not  be  opposed  by 
any  Democrat  who  indorses  the  declaration  of  Jefferson 
that  the  people  are  capable  of  self-government;  nor 
will  it  be  opposed  by  any  Republican  who  holds  to  Lin 
coln's  idea  that  this  should  be  a  government  of  the 
people,  by  the  people,  and  for  the  people."  l 

The  first  victory  of  "direct  democracy"  came  in  the 
very  year  of  Mr.  Bryan's  memorable  defeat.  In  1896, 
the  legislature  of  South  Dakota  was  captured  by  a  Demo 
cratic-Populist  majority,  and  at  the  session  beginning 
in  the  following  January,  it  passed  an  amendment  to 
the  state  constitution,  establishing  a  system  of  initiative 
and  referendum.  Some  leaders  of  the  old  Knights  of 
Labor  and  the  president  of  the  Farmers'  Alliance  were 
prominently  identified  with  the  campaign  for  this  inno 
vation.  The  resolution  was  "passed  by  a  strict  party 
vote,  and  to  the  Populists  is  due  the  credit  of  passing  it," 
reported  "The  Direct  Legislation  Record"  in  June,  1897. 
In  the  contest  over  ratification  at  the  polls  a  party  divi- 

1  The  political  history  of  the  initiative  and  referendum  has  never  been 
written.  Some  valuable  materials  are  to  be  found  in  Direct  Legislation, 
Senate  Document  No.  340,  55th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.  (1898);  and  in  "The 
Direct  Legislation  Record,"  founded  in  May,  1894;  and  in  the  "Equity 
Series,"  now  published  at  Philadelphia.  See  also  Oberholtzer,  The 
Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall  in  America,  ed.  1911. 


THE   REVIVAL   OF   DISSENT  285 

sion  ensued.  The  Democratic  state  convention  in 
1898  adopted  a  plank  favoring  direct  legislation,  on 
"the  principle  that  the  people  should  rule";  and  the 
Republicans  contented  themselves  with  urging  party 
members  "to  study  the  legislative  initiative  and  refer 
endum."  At  the  ensuing  election  the  amendment  was 
carried  by  a  vote  of  23,876  to  16,483 ;  but  ten  years 
elapsed  before  any  use  was  made  of  the  new  device.1 

A  cloud  no  bigger  than  a  man's  hand  had  appeared 
on  the  horizon  of  representative  government.  East, 
West,  North,  and  South,  advocates  of  direct  govern 
ment  were  busy  with  their  propaganda,  Populists  and 
Democrats  taking  the  lead,  with  Republican  politicians 
not  far  in  the  rear.  The  year  following  the  adoption 
of  the  South  Dakota  amendment  a  combination  of 
Democrats  and  Populists  carried  a  similar  provision 
through  the  state  legislature  of  Utah  and  obtained  its 
ratification  in  1900.  This  victory  was  a  short-lived 
triumph,  for  the  Republicans  soon  regained  their  as 
cendancy  and  stopped  the  progress  of  direct  legislation 
by  refusing  to  enact  the  enabling  law  putting  the  amend 
ment  into  force.  But  this  check  in  Utah  did  not  dampen 
the  •  ardor  of  reformers  in  other  commonwealths.  In 
1902,  Oregon  adopted  the  new  system;  four  years  later 
Montana  followed ;  in  1907,  Oklahoma  came  into  the 
Union  with  the  device  embodied  in  the  Constitution; 
and  then  the  progress  of  the  movement  became  remark 
ably  rapid.  It  was  adopted  by  Missouri  and  Maine  in 
1908,  Arkansas  and  Colorado  in  1910,  Arizona  and 

1  The  Initiative,  Referendum,  and  Recall,  Annals  of  the  American 
Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science,  September,  1912,  pp.  84  ff. 


286      CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

California  in  1911,  Washington,  Nebraska,  Idaho, 
and  Ohio  in  1912.  By  this  time  Populists  and  Demo 
crats  had  ceased  to  monopolize  the  agitation  for  direct 
government ;  it  had  become  respectable,  even  in  some 
what  conservative  Republican  circles. 

It  should  be  pointed  out,  however,  that  there  is  a 
conservative  and  a  radical  system  of  initiative  and  ref 
erendum  :  one  which  fixes  the  percentage  necessary 
to  initiate  and  adopt  a  measure  at  a  point  so  high  as  to 
prevent  its  actual  operation,  and  another  which  places 
it  so  low  as  to  make  its  frequent  use  feasible.  The  older 
and  more  radical  group  of  propagandists,  finding  their 
general  scheme  so  widely  taken  up  in  practical  politics, 
soon  began  to  devote  their  attention  rather  to  attacking 
the  stricter  safeguards  thrown  up  by  those  who  gave 
their  support  to  direct  government  in  theory  only. 

In  its  simple  form  of  initiation  by  five  per  cent  of  the 
voters  and  adoption  by  a  majority  of  those  voting  on 
the  measure  submitted,  this  new  device  was  undoubtedly 
a  revolutionary  change  from  the  American  system  of 
government  as  conceived  by  the  framers  of  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States  —  with  its  checks  and 
balances,  indirect  elections,  and  judicial  control  over 
legislation.  The  more  radical  of  the  advocates  of  direct 
government  frankly  admitted  that  this  was  true,  and  they 
sought  to  strengthen  this  very  feature  of  their  system 
by  the  addition  of  another  device,  known  as  the  recall, 
which,  when  applied  to  judges  as  well  as  other  elective 
officers,  reduced  judicial  control  over  legislation  to  a 
practical  nullity.  Where  judges  are  elected  for  short 
terms  by  popular  vote  and  made  subject  to  the  recall, 


THE   REVIVAL   OF   DISSENT  287 

and  where  laws  are  made  by  popular  vote  of  the  same 
electors  who  choose  the  judges,  it  is  obvious  that  the 
very  foundations  of  judicial  supremacy  are  undermined. 

The  recall,  like  direct  democracy,  was  not  new  to 
American  politics.  Both  were  understood,  at  least 
in  principle,  by  the  framers  of  the  Federal  Constitution 
and  rejected  decisively.  The  recall  seems  to  have  made 
its  appearance  first  in  local  form,  —  in  the  charter  of 
Los  Angeles,  adopted  in  1903.  From  there  it  went 
to  the  Seattle  charter  of  1906,  and  two  years  later  it  was 
adopted  as  a  state-wide  system  applicable  to  all  elective 
officers  by  Oregon.  Its  progress  was  swiftest  in  mu 
nicipal  affairs,  for  it  quite  generally  accompanied  "the 
commission  form"  of  city  government  as  a  check  on 
the  commissioners  in  their  exercise  of  enlarged  powers. 

The  state-wide  recall,  however,  received  a  remark 
able  impetus  in  1911  from  the  controversy  over  the  ad 
mission  of  Arizona,  which  attracted  the  attention  of 
the  nation.  That  territory  had  framed  a  constitution 
containing  a  radical  form  of  the  recall  based  on  the  Ore 
gon  plan,  and  in  August,  1911,  Congress  passed  a  resolu 
tion  admitting  the  applicant,  on  condition  that  the 
provision  relating  to  the  recall  should  be  specifically 
submitted  to  the  voters  for  their  approval  or  rejection. 
President  Taft  was  at  once  stirred  to  action,  and  on 
August  15  he  sent  Congress  a  ringing  message,  dis 
playing  unwonted  vigor  and  determination,  vetoing 
the  resolution  and  denouncing  the  recall  of  judges  in 
unmeasured  terms.  "Constitutions,"  he  said,  "are 
checks  upon  the  hasty  action  of  the  majority.  They 
are  the  self-imposed  restraints  of  a  whole  people  upon 


288     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

a  majority  of  them  to  secure  sober  action  and  a  re 
spect  for  the  rights  of  the  minority.  ...  In  order  to 
maintain  the  rights  of  the  minority  and  the  individual 
and  to  preserve  our  constitutional  balance  we  must 
have  judges  with  courage  to  decide  against  the  majority 
when  justice  and  law  require.  ...  As  the  possibilities 
of  such  a  system  [as  the  recall]  pass  in  review,  is  it  too 
much  to  characterize  it  as  one  which  will  destroy  the 
judiciary,  its  standing,  and  its  usefulness?" 

Acting  upon  the  recommendation  of  President  Taft, 
Congress  passed  a  substitute  resolution  for  admitting 
Arizona  only  on  condition  that  the  obnoxious  recall 
of  judges  be  stricken  from  the  constitution  of  the  state.1 
The  debates  in  Congress  over  the  admission  of  Arizona 
covered  the  whole  subject  of  direct  government  in  all 
its  aspects,  and  these,  coupled  with  the  President's  veto 
message,  brought  the  issue  prominently  to  the  front 
throughout  the  country.  Voters  to  whom  it  had  pre 
viously  been  an  obscure  western  device  now  began  to 
take  a  deep  interest  in  it ;  the  press  took  it  up ;  and  one 
more  test  for  ''progressive"  and  " reactionary "  was 
put  in  the  popular  program. 

The  movement  for  direct  popular  participation  in 
state  and  local  government  was  inevitably  accompanied 
by  a  demand  for  more  direct  government  within  the  po 
litical  party ;  in  other  words,  by  a  demand  for  the  aban 
donment  of  the  representative  convention  in  favor  of 

1  Arizona  was  admitted  without  the  judicial  recall  provision,  but 
immediately  set  to  work  and  reinserted  it  in  the  constitution,  and  devised 
a  plan  for  the  recall  of  Federal  district  judges  as  well. 


THE   REVIVAL   OF   DISSENT  289 

the  selection  of  candidates  by  direct  primary.  During 
the  decade  of  the  great  Populist  upheaval,  legislation 
relative  to  political  parties  was  largely  confined  to  the 
introduction  of  the  Australian  ballot  and  the  establish 
ment  of  safeguards  around  the  primaries  at  which  dele 
gates  to  party  conventions  were  chosen.  The  direct 
primary,  like  the  initiative  and  referendum,  grew  out 
of  a  discontent  with  social  and  economic  conditions, 
which  led  to  an  attack  on  the  political  machinery  that 
was  alleged  to  be  responsible  for  them.  Like  the  initia 
tive  and  referendum,  also,  it  was  not  an  altogether  new 
device,  for  it  had  been  used  for  a  long  time  in  some  of 
the  states  as  a  local  institution  established  by  party  cus 
tom  ;  but  when  it  was  taken  up  by  the  state  legislatures, 
it  made  a  far  more  rapid  advance. 

It  was  not,  however,  until  the  opening  of  the  new 
century  that  primary  legislation  began  to  engross  a 
large  share  of  legislative  activities.  In  1903,  "the  first 
state-wide  primary  law  with  fairly  complete  provisions 
for  legal  supervision  was  enacted  by  the  state  of  Wis 
consin";  Oregon,  making  use  of  the  new  initiative 
system,  enacted  a  thoroughgoing  primary  law  in  1904; 
and  the  following  year  Illinois  adopted  a  state-wide 
measure.  Other  states,  hesitating  at  such  an  extensive 
application  of  the  principle,  contented  themselves  at 
first  with  laws  instituting  local  primaries,  such,  for 
example,  as  the  Nebraska  law  of  1905  covering  cities 
of  over  125,000,  or  the  earlier  law  of  Minnesota  cover 
ing  only  Hennepin  county.  "So  rapid  was  the  progress 
of  public  opinion  and  legislation,"  says  Mr.  Merriam, 
"that  in  many  instances  a  compromise  law  of  one  session 
u 


2go     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

of  the  legislature  was  followed  by  a  thoroughgoing 
law  in  the  next.  For  example,  the  North  Dakota  law 
of  1905  authorized  direct  primaries  for  all  district  nom 
inations,  but  did  not  include  state  offices ;  but  in  1907, 
a  sweeping  act  was  passed  covering  practically  all  offices." 
The  vogue  of  the  direct  primary  was  confined  largely 
to  the  West  at  first,  but  it  steadily  gained  in  favor  in 
the  East.  Governor  Hughes,  of  New  York,  in  his  con 
test  with  the  old  organization  of  the  Republican  party, 
became  a  stanch  advocate  of  the  system,  recommended  it 
to  the  legislature  in  his  messages,  campaigned  through  the 
state  to  create  public  sentiment  in  favor  of  the  reform, 
and  labored  unsuccessfully  to  secure  the  passage  of  a 
primary  law,  until  he  closed  his  term  to  accept  an  ap 
pointment  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 
In  1911,  the  Democratic  party,  which  had  carried  New 
York  state  at  the  preceding  election,  enacted  a  primary 
law  applicable  to  local,  but  not  to  state,  offices.  About 
the  same  time  Massachusetts,  Maine,  and  New  Jersey 
joined  the  long  list  of  direct  primary  states.  Within 
almost  ten  years  the  principle  in  its  state-wide  form 
had  been  accepted  in  two  thirds  of  the  states,  and  in 
some  local  form  in  nearly  all  of  the  other  commonwealths. 

Meanwhile,  the  theory  and  practice  of  direct  govern 
ment  made  their  way  upward  into  the  Federal  govern 
ment.  As  early  as  1826,  Mr.  Storrs,  a  representative 
from  New  York,  introduced  in  the  House  a  constitutional 
amendment  providing  for  the  popular  election  of  United 
States  Senators,  and  from  time  to  time  thereafter  the 
proposal  was  urged  upon  Congress.  President  Johnson, 


THE   REVIVAL   OF   DISSENT  291 

who  had  long  been  an  advocate  of  this  change  in  the 
Federal  government,  made  it  the  subject  of  a  special 
message  to  Congress  in  1868 ;  but  in  his  contest  with 
that  body  the  proposed  measure  was  lost  to  sight.  Not 
long  afterward  it  appeared  again  in  the  House  and  the 
Senate,  and  at  length  the  lower  house  in  1893  passed  an 
amendment  providing  for  popular  election  by  the  requi 
site  two- thirds  vote,  but  the  Senate  refused  to  act.  Again 
in  1894,  in  1898  (by  a  vote  of  185  to  n),  in  1900  (240  to 
15),  and  in  1902  by  practically  a  unanimous  vote,  there 
being  no  division,  the  House  passed  the  amendment; 
still  the  Senate  resisted  the  change. 

In  the  Senate  itself  were  found  occasional  cham 
pions  of  popular  election,  principally  from  the  West 
and  South.  Mitchell,  of  Oregon,  Turpie,  of  Indiana, 
Perkins,  of  California,  Berry,  of  Arkansas,  and  Bailey, 
of  Texas,  took  the  leadership  in  this  contest  for  reform. 
Chandler,  of  New  Hampshire,  Depew,  of  New  York, 
Penrose,  of  Pennsylvania,  Hoar,  of  Massachusetts, 
Foraker,  of  Ohio,  and  Spooner,  of  Wisconsin,  leveled 
their  batteries  against  it.  State  after  state  legislature 
passed  resolutions  demanding  the  change,  until  at 
length  three  fourths  had  signified  their  demand  for 
popular  election. 

The  Senate  as  a  whole  remained  obdurate.  When  in 
the  Fifty-third  Congress  the  resolution  of  the  House 
came  before  that  body,  Mr.  Hoar,  of  Massachusetts, 
made,  on  April  6  and  7,  1893,  one  of  his  most  eloquent 
and  impassioned  pleas  for  resisting  this  new  proposal 
to  the  uttermost.  He  declared  that  it  would  transfer 
the  seat  of  power  to  the  "great  cities  and  masses  of 


292     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

population,"  that  it  would  create  new  temptations  to 
fraud  and  corrupt  practices,  that  it  implied  that  the 
Senate  had  been  untrue  to  its  trust,  that  it  would  lead 
to  the  election  of  the  President  and  the  judiciary  by 
popular  majorities,  and  that  it  would  "result  in  the 
overthrow  of  the  whole  scheme  of  the  Senate  and  in  the 
end  of  the  whole  scheme  of  the  national  Constitution 
as  designed  and  established  by  the  framers  of  the  Con 
stitution  and  the  people  who  adopted  it."  With  im 
patience,  he  refused  to  listen  to  the  general  indictment 
which  had  been  brought  against  the  Senate  as  then 
constituted.  "The  greatest  victories  of  constitutional 
liberty  since  the  world  began,"  he  concluded,  "are  those 
whose  battle  ground  has  been  the  American  Senate, 
and  whose  champions  have  been  the  Senators  who  for  a 
hundred  years,  while  they  have  resisted  the  popular 
passions  of  the  House,  have  led,  represented,  guided, 
obeyed,  and  made  effective  the  deliberate  will  of  a  free 
people." 

Having  failed  to  make  an  impression  on  the  Senate 
by  a  frontal  attack,  the  advocates  of  popular  election 
set  to  work  to  capture  that  citadel  by  a  rear  assault. 
They  began  to  apply  the  principle  of  the  direct  primary 
in  the  nomination  of  candidates  for  the  Senate,  and  this 
development  at  length  culminated  in  the  Oregon  scheme 
for  binding  the  legislature  to  accept  the  "people's  choice." 
This  movement  gained  rapid  headway  in  the  South, 
where  the  real  contest  was  over  nomination,  not  election, 
on  account  of  the  absence  of  party  divisions.  As  early 
as  1875,  the  Nebraska  constitution  had  provided  for 
taking  a  popular  preferential  vote  on  candidates  for 


THE   REVIVAL  OF  DISSENT  293 

the  Senate ;  but  no  considerable  interest  seems  to  have 
been  taken  in  it  at  the  time.  In  1899,  Nevada  passed 
a  law  entitled  "an  act  to  secure  the  election  of  United 
States  Senators  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  the  people 
and  the  choice  of  the  electors  of  the  state."  Shortly 
afterward,  Oregon  enacted  her  famous  statute  which 
attempted  to  compel  the  legislature  to  accept  the  popu 
lar  nominee  ;  and  from  that  time  forward  the  new  system 
spread  rapidly.  By  1910,  at  least  three  fourths  of  the 
states  nominated  candidates  for  the  Senate  by  some 
kind  of  a  popular  primary. 

It  was  not  until  1911  that  the  Senate  yielded  to  the 
overwhelming  popular  demand  for  a  change  in  the 
methods  of  election  provided  in  the  Constitution.  In 
December,  1909,  Senator  Bristow,  of  Kansas,  introduced 
a  resolution  designed  to  effect  this  'reform,  and  after 
a  hot  debate  it  was  defeated  on  February  28,  1911,  by 
a  vote  of  54  to  33,  four  short  of  the  requisite  two  thirds. 
In  the  next  Congress,  which  convened  on  April  4,  ten 
Senators  who  had  voted  against  the  amendment  had 
been  retired,  and  the  champions  of  the  measure,  taking 
it  up  again  with  renewed  energy,  were  able  to  force  it 
through  the  upper  house  on  June  12,  1911,  by  a  margin 
of  five  more  than  the  two  thirds.  The  resolution  went 
to  the  House  and  a  deadlock  arose  between  the  two  cham 
bers  for  a  time  over  Federal  control  of  elections,  pro 
vided  in  the  Senate  resolution,  which  was  obnoxious  to 
many  southern  representatives.  At  length,  however, 
on  May  13,  1912,  the  opponents  in  the  House  gave 
way,  and  the  resolution  passed  by  an  overwhelming  vote. 
Within  a  year,  the  resolution  was  ratified  by  the  requisite 


294     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

three  fourths  of  the  state  legislatures,  and  it  was  pro 
claimed  on  May  31,  1913. 

The  advance  of  direct  democracy  in  the  West  was 
accompanied  by  a  revival  of  the  question  of  woman 
suffrage.  That  subject  had  been  earnestly  agitated 
about  the  time  of  the  Civil  War ;  and  under  the  leader 
ship  of  Elizabeth  Cady  Stan  ton,  Susan  B.  Anthony, 
and  others  it  made  considerable  headway  among  those 
sections  of  the  population  which  had  favored  the  emanci 
pation  of  the  slaves.  Indeed,  it  was  inevitably  linked 
with  the  discussion  of  " natural  rights,"  extensively 
carried  on  during  the  days  when  attempts  were  being 
made  to  give  political  rights  to  the  newly  emancipated 
bondmen.  Woman  suffrage  was  warmly  urged  before 
the  New  York  state  constitutional  convention  in  1867 
by  Mr.  George  William  Curtis,  in  a  speech  which  has 
become  a  classic  among  the  arguments  for  that  cause. 
During  the  seventies  suffrage  petitions  bearing  the  signa 
tures  of  thousands  of  men  and  women  were  laid  before 
Congress,  and  an  attempt  was  made  to  secure  from  the 
Supreme  Court  an  interpretation  of  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  which  would  force  the  states  to  grant  the 
ballot  to  women. 

At  length  the  movement  began  to  subside,  and 
writers  who  passed  for  keen  observers  declared  it  to 
be  at  an  end.  The  nineteenth  century  closed  with 
victories  for  the  women  in  only  four  states,  Wyoming, 
Colorado,  Utah,  and  Idaho.  The  first  of  these  states 
had  granted  the  vote  to  women  while  yet  a  territory,  and 
on  its  admission  to  the  Union  in  1890,  it  became  the 


THE   REVIVAL   OF  DISSENT  295 

first  state  with  full  political  equality.  Three  years 
later,  Colorado  enfranchised  women,  and  in  1896  Utah 
and  Idaho  joined  the  equal  suffrage  commonwealths. 
Meanwhile,  a  very  large  number  of  northern  and  eastern 
states  had  given  women  the  right  to  vote  in  local  or 
school  elections,  Minnesota  and  Michigan  in  1875  and 
other  states  in  quick  succession.  Nevertheless,  these 
gains  were,  relatively  speaking,  small,  and  there  seemed 
to  be  little  widespread  enthusiasm  about  the  further 
extension  of  the  right. 

Of  course,  the  agitation  continued,  but  in  somewhat 
obscure  circles,  under  a  running  fire  of  ridicule  whenever 
it  appeared  in  public.  At  length  it  broke  out  with  un 
precedented  vigor,  shortly  after  the  tactics  adopted  by 
militant  English  women  startled  the  world.  Within 
a  short  time  new  and  substantial  victories  gave  the  move 
ment  a  standing  which  could  not  be  ignored  either  by 
its  positive  opponents  or  the  indifferent  politicians. 
In  1910,  the  suffragists  carried  the  state  of  Washington ; 
in  1911,  they  carried  California;  in  1912,  they  won  in 
Arizona,  Kansas,  and  Oregon ;  but  lost  Ohio,  Michigan, 
and  Wisconsin.  These  victories  gave  them  nine  states 
and  of  course  a  considerable  influence  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  and  the  right  to  participate  in  the  elec 
tion  of  eighteen  out  of  ninety-six  Senators.  But  the 
defeat  in  the  three  middle  states  led  the  opponents 
of  woman  suffrage  to  believe  that  the  movement  could 
be  confined  to  the  far  West.  This  hope  was,  however, 
dashed  in  1913  when  the  legislature  of  Illinois  gave  women 
the  right  to  vote  for  all  statutory  officers,  including  elec 
tors  for  President  of  the  United  States.  Determined  to 


296     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

make  use  of  the  political  power  thus  obtained,  the  suf 
fragists,  under  the  leadership  of  Alice  Paul,  renewed 
with  great  vigor  the  agitation  at  Washington  for  a  na 
tional  amendment  forbidding  states  to  disqualify  women 
from  voting  merely  on  account  of  sex. 

The  Rise  and  Growth  of  Socialism 

With  the  spread  of  direct  elections  and  the  initiative 
and  referendum,  and  the  adoption  of  the  two  amend 
ments  to  the  Federal  Constitution  authorizing  an  in 
come  tax l  and  the  popular  election  of  Senators,  the 
milder  demands  of  Populism  were  secured.  At  the 
same  time,  the  prosperity  of  the  farmers  and  the  enor 
mous  rise  in  ground  values  which  accompanied  the 
economic  advance  of  the  country  removed  some  of  the 
most  potent  causes  of  the  discontent  on  which  Populism 
thrived.  Organized  Populism  died  a  natural  death. 
Those  Populists  who  advocated  only  political  reforms 
went  over  to  the  Republican  and  Democratic  parties; 
the  advocates  of  radical  economic  changes,  on  the  other 
hand,  entered  the  Socialist  ranks. 

Socialism,  as  an  organized  movement  in  the  United 
States,  runs  back  to  the  foundation  of  the  Social-Demo 
cratic  Workingmen's  party  in  New  York  City,  in  1874, 
which  was  changed  into  the  Socialist  Labor  party  three 
years  later,  —  a  party  that  still  survives.  This  group 
did  not  enter  into  national  politics  until  1892,  although 
its  branches  occasionally  made  nominations  for  local 
offices  or  fused  with  other  labor  groups,  as  in  the  New 

1  See  below,  p.  325. 


THE  REVIVAL  OF  DISSENT  297 

York  mayoralty  campaign  of  1886.  In  its  vigorous 
propaganda  against  capitalism,  this  party  soon  came 
into  collision  with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor, 
established  in  1886,  and  definitely  broke  with  it  four 
years  later  when  the  latter  withheld  a  charter  from  the 
New  York  Central  Federation  for  the  alleged  reason 
that  the  Socialist  Labor  party  of  that  city  was  an 
affiliated  organization.  After  the  break  with  the  Ameri 
can  Federation,  this  Socialist  group  turned  for  a  time  to 
the  more  radical  Knights  of  Labor,  but  this  new  flirta 
tion  with  labor  was  no  more  successful  than  the  first, 
and  in  time  the  Socialist  Labor  party  declared  war  on 
all  the  methods  of  American  trades-unionism.  Its 
gains  numerically  were  not  very  significant;  it  polled 
something  over  twenty  thousand  votes  in  1892  and  over 
eighty  thousand  in  1896  —  the  high-water  mark  in  its 
political  career.  Its  history  has  been  a  stormy  one, 
marked  by  dissensions,  personal  controversies,  and  splits, 
but  the  party  is  still  maintained  by  a  decreasing  band 
of  loyal  adherents. 

The  growth  of  interest  in  socialism,  however,  was  by 
no  means  confined  to  the  membership  of  the  Socialist 
Labor  party.  External  events  were  stirring  a  con 
sciousness  that  grave  labor  problems  had  arisen  within 
the  American  Commonwealth.  The  bloody  strikes  at 
Homestead,  Cceur  d'Alene,  Buffalo,  and  Pullman  in 
the  eighties  and  early  nineties  moved  the  country  as 
no  preachments  of  abstract  socialist  philosophy  could 
ever  have  done.  That  such  social  conflicts  were  full 
of  serious  portent  was  recognized  even  by  such  a  remote 
and  conservative  thinker  as  President  Cleveland  in 


298     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

his  message  of  1886  to  Congress.  In  that  very  year, 
the  Society  of  Christian  Socialists  was  formed,  with 
Professor  R.  T.  Ely  and  Professor  G.  D.  Herron  among 
its  members,  and  about  the  same  time  "Nationalist" 
clubs  were  springing  up  all  over  the  country  as  a  result 
of  the  propaganda  created  by  Bellamy's  Looking  Back 
ward,  published  in  1887.  The  decline  of  the  Populist 
party,  which  had  indorsed  most  of  the  socialistic  pro 
posals  that  appealed  to  Americans  tinged  with  radical 
ism,  the  formation  of  local  labor  and  socialist  societies 
of  one  kind  or  another,  and  the  creation  of  dissatisfac 
tion  with  the  methods  and  program  of  the  Socialist 
Labor  party  finally  led  to  the  establishment  of  a  new 
national  political  organization. 

This  was  effected  in  1900  when  a  general  fusion  was 
attempted  under  the  name  of  the  Social  Democratic 
party,  which  nominated  Mr.  Eugene  V.  Debs  for  Presi 
dent  at  a  convention  held  in  Indianapolis.  The  Social 
ist  Labor  party,  however,  declined  to  join  the  organiza 
tion  and  went  on  its  own  way.  The  vote  of  the  new 
party,  ninety-six  thousand,  induced  the  leaders  in  the 
movement  to  believe  that  they  were  on  the  right  track, 
for  this  was  considerably  larger  than  the  rival  group  had 
ever  secured.  Steps  were  immediately  taken  to  put  the 
party  on  a  permanent  basis ;  the  name  Socialist  party 
was  assumed  in  1901 ;  local  branches  were  established 
in  all  sections  of  the  country  with  astonishing  rapidity; 
and  a  vigorous  propaganda  was  undertaken.  In  the 
national  election  of  1904  over  four  hundred  thousand 
votes  were  polled;  in  1908,  when  Mr.  Bryan  and  Mr. 
Roosevelt  gave  a  radical  tinge  to  the  older  parties,  a 


THE   REVIVAL   OF   DISSENT  299 

gain  of  only  about  twenty-five  thousand  was  made ;  but 
in  1912,  despite  Mr.  Wilson's  flirtation  with  western 
democracy  and  the  candidacy  of  Mr.  Roosevelt  on  a 
socialistic  platform,  the  Socialist  party  more  than  doubled 
its  vote. 

During  these  years  of  growth  the  party  began  to  pass 
from  the  stage  of  propaganda  to  that  of  action.  In 
1910,  the  Socialists  of  Milwaukee  carried  the  city,  se 
cured  twelve  members  of  the  lower  house  of  the  state 
legislature,  elected  two  state  Senators,  and  returned 
Mr.  Victor  Berger  to  Congress.  This  victory,  which 
was  hailed  as  a  turning  point  in  the  march  of  socialism, 
was  largely  due,  however,  to  the  divided  condition  of 
the  opposition,  and  thus  the  Socialists  really  went  in  as 
a  plurality,  not  a  majority  party.  The  closing  of  the 
Republican  and  Democratic  ranks  in  1912  resulted  in 
the  ousting  of  the  Socialist  city  administration,  although 
the  party  polled  a  vote  considerably  larger  than  that 
cast  two  years  previously.  In  other  parts  of  the  coun 
try  numerous  municipal  and  local  officers  were  elected 
by  the  Socialists,  and  in  1912  they  could  boast  of  several 
hundred  public  offices.1 

While  there  was  no  little  difference  of  opinion  among 
the  Socialists  as  to  the  precise  character  of  their  prin 
ciples  and  tactics,  —  a  condition  not  peculiar  to  that 
party,  —  there  were  certain  general  ideas  running  through 
their  propaganda  and  platforms.  Modern  industry, 
they  all  held,  creates  necessarily  a  division  of  society 
into  a  relatively  few  capitalists,  on  the  one  hand,  who 
own,  control,  and  manipulate  the  machinery  of  produc- 

1  See  list  in  the  National  Municipal  Review  for  July,  1912. 


300     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

tion  and  the  natural  resources  of  the  country,  and  on 
the  other  hand,  a  great  mass  of  landless,  toolless,  and 
homeless  working  people  dependent  upon  the  sale  of 
their  labor  for  a  livelihood.  There  is  an  inherent  an 
tagonism  between  these  two  classes,  for  each  seeks  to 
secure  all  that  it  can  from  the  annual  output  of  wealth ; 
this  antagonism  is  manifest  in  labor  organizations, 
strikes,  and  industrial  disputes  of  every  kind.  Out  of 
this  contest,  the  former  class  gains  wealth,  luxury, 
safety,  and  the  latter,  poverty,  slums,  and  misery. 
Finally,  if  the  annual  toll  levied  upon  industry  by  the 
exploiters  and  the  frightful  wastes  due  to  competition 
and  maladjustment  were  eliminated,  all  who  labor  with 
hand  or  brain  could  enjoy  reasonable  comfort  and  se 
curity,  and  also  leisure  for  the  cultivation  of  the  nobler 
arts  of  civilization. 

At  the  present  time,  runs  the  Socialist  platform  of 
1912,  "the  capitalist  class,  though  few  in  numbers,  ab 
solutely  controls  the  government  —  legislative,  executive, 
and  judicial.  This  class  owns  the  machinery  of  gathering 
and  disseminating  news  through  its  organized  press.  It 
subsidizes  seats  of  learning,  —  the  colleges  and  the 
schools,  —  even  religious  and  moral  agencies.  It  has 
also  the  added  prestige  which  established  customs  give 
to  any  order  of  society,  right  or  wrong."  But  the  work 
ing  class  is  becoming  more  and  more  discontented  with 
its  lot;  it  is  becoming  consolidated  by  cooperation, 
political  and  economic,  and  in  the  future  it  will  become 
the  ruling  class  of  the  country,  taking  possession,  through 
the  machinery  of  the  government,  of  the  great  instru 
mentalities  of  production  and  distribution.  This  final 


THE   REVIVAL   OF   DISSENT  301 

achievement  of  socialism  is  being  prepared  by  the 
swift  and  inevitable  consolidation  of  the  great  indus 
tries  into  corporations,  managed  by  paid  agents  for  the 
owners  of  the  stocks  and  bonds.  The  transition  from 
the  present  order  will  take  the  form  of  municipal,  state, 
and  national  assumption  of  the  various  instrumentali 
ties  of  production  and  distribution  —  with  or  without 
compensation  to  the  present  owners,  as  circumstances 
may  dictate.1  Such  are  the  general  presuppositions  of 
socialism. 

The  Socialist  party  had  scarcely  got  under  way 
before  it  was  attacked  from  an  unexpected  quarter  by 
revolutionary  trade-unionists,  known  as  the  Industrial 
Workers  of  the  World,  who  revived  in  part  the  old 
principle  of  class  solidarity  (as  opposed  to  trade  soli 
darity)  which  lay  at  the  basis  of  the  Knights  of  Labor. 
The  leaders  of  this  new  unionism,  among  whom  Mr. 
W.  D.  Hay  wood  was  prominent,  did  not  repudiate 
altogether  the  Socialist  labors  to  secure  control  of  the 
organs  of  government  by  the  ballot,  but  they  minimized 
their  importance  and  pressed  to  the  front  the  doctrine 
that  by  vigorous  and  uncompromising  mass  strikes  a 
revolutionary  spirit  might  be  roused  in  the  working  class 
and  the  actual  control  of  business  wrested  from  the  capi 
talists,  perhaps  without  the  intervention  of  the  govern 
ment  at  all. 

This  new  unionism  was  launched  at  a  conference  of 
radical  labor  leaders  in  1904,  at  which  the  following 

1  The  Socialist  party  does  not  at  present  contemplate  public  ownership 
of  petty  properties  or  of  farm  lands  tilled  by  their  possessors.  '  This  is 
one  part  of  its  program  not  yet  definitely  worked  out. 


302     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

program  was  adopted:  "The  working  class  and  the 
employing  class  have  nothing  in  common.  Between 
these  two  classes  a  struggle  must  go  on  until  the  workers 
of  the  world  organize  as  a  class,  take  possession  of  the 
earth  and  machinery  of  production  and  abolish  the  wage 
system.  We  find  that  the  centering  of  the  management 
of  industries  into  fewer  and  fewer  hands  makes  the 
trade  unions  unable  to  cope  with  the  ever  growing  power 
of  the  employing  class.  The  trade  unions  foster  a  state 
of  affairs  which  allows  one  set  of  workers  to  be  pitted 
against  another  set  of  workers  in  the  same  industry. 
.  .  .  Moreover  the  trade  unions  aid  the  employing 
class  to  mislead  the  workers  into  the  belief  that  the 
working  class  have  interests  in  common  with  their  em 
ployers.  These  conditions  can  be  changed  and  the 
interest  of  the  working  class  upheld  only  by  an  organ 
ization  formed  in  such  a  way  that  all  its  members  in  any 
one  industry,  or  in  all  industries  if  necessary,  cease 
work  whenever  a  strike  or  a  lockout  is  on  in  any  depart 
ment  thereof.  .  .  .  We  must  inscribe  on  our  banner 
the  revolutionary  watchword,  'Abolish  the  wage  sys 
tem.'" 

This  new  society  made  a  disturbance  in  labor  circles 
entirely  out  of  proportion  to  its  numerical  strength. 
Its  leaders  managed  strikes  at  McKees  Rocks,  Pennsyl 
vania,  at  Lawrence,  Massachusetts,  in  1912,  and  at 
other  points,  laying  emphasis  on  the  united  action  of 
all  the  working  people  of  all  the  trades  involved  in  the 
particular  industry.  The  "new  unionism"  appealed 
particularly  to  the  great  mass  of  foreign  laborers  who 
had  no  vote  and  therefore  perhaps  turned  with  more 


THE   REVIVAL   OF   DISSENT  303 

zeal  to  " direct"  action.  It  appeared,  however,  that  the 
membership  of  the  Industrial  Workers  was  not  over 
70,000  in  1912,  and  that  it  had  little  of  the  stability 
of  the  membership  of  the  old  unions. 

What  the  effect  of  this  new  unionism  will  be  on  the 
Socialist  party  remains  to  be  seen.  That  party  at  its 
convention  in  1912  went  on  record  against  the  violent 
tactics  of  revolutionary  unionism,  and  by  a  party  vote 
"  recalled"  Mr.  Hay  wood  from  his  membership  on  the 
executive  committee.  The  appearance  of  this  more 
menacing  type  of  working-class  action  and  the  refusal 
of  the  Socialist  party  to  accept  it  with  open  arms  gave  a 
new  turn  to  the  attitude  of  the  conservative  press  to 
ward  regular  political  socialism  of  the  strict  Marxian 
school. 

The  Counter-Reformation 

Just  as  the  Protestant  Revolt  during  the  sixteenth 
century  was  followed  by  a  counter-reformation  in  the 
Catholic  Church  which  swept  away  many  abuses,  while 
retaining  and  fortifying  the  essential  principles  of  the 
faith,  so  the  widespread  and  radical  discontent  of  the 
working  classes  with  the  capitalist  system  hitherto  obtain 
ing  produced  a  counter-reformation  on  the  part  of  those 
who  wish  to  preserve  its  essentials  while  curtailing  some 
of  its  excesses.  This  counter-reformation  made  a  deep 
impress  upon  American  political  thinking  and  legisla 
tion  at  the  turning  of  the  new  century.  More  than 
once  during  his  presidency  Mr.  Roosevelt  warned  the 
capitalists  that  a  reform  of  abuses  was  the  price  which 


3o4      CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

they  would  have  to  pay  in  order  to  save  themselves 
from  a  socialist  revolution.  Eminent  economists  turned 
aside  from  free  trade  and  laissez  faire  to  consider  some 
of  the  grievances  of  the  working  class,  and  many  aban 
doned  the  time-honored  discussions  of  "  economic  the 
ories,"  in  favor  of  legislative  programs  embracing  the 
principles  of  state  socialism,  to  which  countries  like 
Germany  and  Great  Britain  were  already  committed. 

Charity  workers  whose  function  had  been  hitherto 
to  gather  up  the  wrecks  of  civilization  and  smooth  their 
dying  days  began  to  talk  of  "a  war  for  the  prevention  of 
poverty,"  and  an  examination  of  their  concrete  legis 
lation  proposals  revealed  the  acceptance  of  some  of  the 
principles  of  state  socialism.  Unrestricted  competition 
and  private  property  had  produced  a  mass  of  poverty 
and  wretchedness  in  the  great  cities  which  constituted 
a  growing  menace  to  society,  and  furnished  themes  for 
socialist  orators.  Social  workers  of  every  kind  began 
the  detailed  analysis  of  the  causes  of  specific  cases  of 
poverty  and  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  elaborate 
programs  of  " social  legislation"  were  necessary  to  the 
elimination  of  a  vast  mass  of  undeserved  poverty. 

Under  the  stimulus  of  these  and  other  forces,  state 
legislatures  in  the  more  industrially  advanced  common 
wealths  began  to  pour  out  a  stream  of  laws  dealing  with 
social  problems.  These  measures  included  employers' 
liability  and  workmen's  compensation  laws,  the  prohibi 
tion  of  child  labor,  minimum  hours  for  dangerous  trades 
like  mining  and  railroading,  minimum  wages  for  women 
and  girls,  employment  bureaus,  and  pensions  for  widows 
with  children  to  support.  While  none  of  the  states 


THE   REVIVAL   OF   DISSENT  305 

went  so  far  as  to  establish  old-age  pensions  and  general 
sickness  and  accident  insurance,  it  was  apparent  from 
an  examination  of  the  legislation  of  the  first  decade  of 
the  twentieth  century  that  they  were  well  in  the  paths 
of  nations  like  Germany,  England,  and  Australia. 


Criticism  of  the  Federal  System 

All  this  unsettlement  in  economics  and  politics  could 
not  fail  to  bring  about  a  reconsideration  of  the  funda 
mentals  in  the  American  constitutional  system  —  par 
ticularly  the  distribution  of  powers  between  the  Federal 
and  state  governments,  which  is  made  by  a  constitution 
drafted  when  economic  conditions  were  totally  differ 
ent  from  what  they  are  to-day.  In  fact,  during  the 
closing  years  of  the  nineteenth  century  there  appeared, 
here  and  there  in  American  political  literature,  evidence 
of  a  discontent  with  the  Federal  system  scarcely  less 
keen  and  critical  than  that  which  was  manifested  with 
the  Articles  of  Confederation  during  those  years  of  our 
history  which  John  Fiske  has  denominated  "The  Criti 
cal  Period." 

Manufacturing  interests  which,  at  the  time  the  Fed 
eral  Constitution  was  framed,  were  so  local  in  character 
as  to  be  excluded  entirely  from  the  control  of  the  Federal 
government  had  now  become  national  or  at  all  events 
sectional,  having  absolutely  no  relation  to  state  lines. 
As  Professor  Leacock  remarks,  "The  central  fact  of  the 
situation  is  that  economically  and  industrially  the 
United  States  is  one  country  or  at  best  one  country  with 
four  or  five  great  subdivisions,  while  politically  it  is 


3o6      CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

broken  into  a  division  of  jurisdictions  holding  sway  to  a 
great  extent  over  its  economic  life,  but  corresponding 
to  no  real  division  either  of  race,  of  history,  of  unity,  of 
settlement,  or  of  commercial  interest."  1  For  example, 
in  1900  the  boot  and  shoe  industry,  instead  of  being  liber 
ally  distributed  among  the  several  states,  was  so  concen 
trated,  that  out  of  the  total  product  44.9  per  cent  was 
produced  by  Massachusetts;  nearly  one  half  of  the 
agricultural  implements  for  that  year  were  made  in 
Illinois;  two  thirds  of  the  glass  of  the  whole  country 
was  made  in  Pennsylvania  and  Indiana ;  while  Pennsyl 
vania  alone  produced  54  per  cent  of  the  iron  and  steel 
manufactured.  The  political  significance  of  this  situa 
tion  was  simply  this  :  the  nation  on  which  each  of  these 
specialized  industries  depended  for  its  existence  had 
practically  no  power  through  the  national  government 
to  legislate  relative  to  them ;  but  in  each  case  a  single 
legislature  representing  a  small  fraction  of  the  people 
connected  with  the  industry  in  question  possesses  the 
power  of  control. 

The  tendency  of  manufacturers  to  centralize  was  ac 
companied,  as  has  been  pointed  out  above,  by  a  similar 
centralization  in  railways.  At  the  close  of  the  nine 
teenth  century,  the  Vanderbilt  system  operated  "some 
20,000  miles  reaching  from  New  York  City  to  Casper, 
Wyoming,  and  covering  the  lake  states  and  the  area 
of  the  upper  Mississippi ;  the  Pennsylvania  system  with 
14,000  miles  covers  a  portion  of  the  same  territory, 
centering  particularly  in  Ohio  and  Indiana ;  the  Morgan 

1  Proceedings  of  the  American  Political  Science  Association,  1908,  Vol. 
V,  P-  42. 


THE   REVIVAL  OF   DISSENT  307 

system,  operating  12,000  miles,  covers  the  Atlantic 
seaboard  and  the  interior  of  the  Southern  States  from 
New  York  to  New  Orleans;  the  Morgan-Hill  system 
operates  20,000  miles  from  Chicago  and  St.  Louis  to  the 
state  of  Washington;  the  Harriman  system  with  19,000 
miles  runs  from  Chicago  southward  to  the  Gulf  and 
westward  to  San  Francisco,  including  a  Southern  route 
from  New  Orleans  to  Los  Angeles;  the  Gould  system 
with  14,000  miles  operates  chiefly  in  the  center  of  the 
middle  west  extending  southward  to  the  Gulf ;  in  addi 
tion  to  these  great  systems  are  a  group  of  minor  combina 
tions  such  as  the  Atchinson  with  7,500  or  the  Boston 
and  Maine  with  3,300  miles  of  road." 

Corresponding  to  this  centralization  in  industries 
and  railways  there  was,  as  we  have  pointed  out,  a  cen 
tralization  in  the  control  of  capital,  particularly  in  two 
large  groups,  the  Standard  Oil  and  the  Morgan  interests. 
As  an  expert  financier,  Mr.  Moody  wrote  in  1904 : 
"  Viewed  as  a  whole,  we  find  the  dominating  influences 
in  the  trusts  to  be  made  up  of  an  intricate  network  of 
large  and  small  groups  of  capitalists,  many  allied  to  one 
another  by  ties  of  more  or  less  importance,  but  all  being 
appendages  to,  or  parties  of  the  greater  groups  which 
are  themselves  dependent  on  and  allied  with  the  two 
mammoth  or  Rockefeller  and  Morgan  groups." 

Facing  this  centralized  national  economy  was  a 
Federal  system  made  for  wholly  different  conditions  — • 
a  national  system  of  manufacturing,  transportation, 
capital,  and  organized  labor,  with  a  national  govern 
ment  empowered,  expressly,  at  least,  to  regulate  only 


3o8     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

one  of  those  interests,  transportation  —  the  other 
fundamental  national  interests  being  referred  to  the 
mercy  of  forty-six  separate  and  independent  state  legis 
latures.  But  it  is  to  be  noted,  these  several  legislatures 
were  by  no  means  free  to  work  out  their  own  program  of 
legislation ;  all  of  them  were,  at  every  point,  subjected  to 
Federal  judicial  control  under  the  general  phrases  of  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment  relative  to  due  process  of  law 
and  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws.1  To  state  it  in 
another  way,  the  national  government  was  powerless  to 
act  freely  with  regard  to  nearly  all  of  the  great  national 
interests,  but  it  was  all  powerful  through  its  judiciary  in 
striking  down  state  legislation. 

A  few  concrete  illustrations  2  will  show  the  lack  of 
correspondence  between  the  political  system  and  the 
economic  system.  Each  state  bids  against  the  others 
to  increase  the  number  of  factories  which  adds  to  its 
wealth  and  increases  the  value  of  property  within  its 
borders,  although  it  makes  no  difference  to  the  total 
wealth  of  the  nation  and  the  happiness  of  the  whole 
people  whether  a  particular  concern  is  located  in  New 
Jersey  or  in  Pennsylvania.  As  the  national  government 
enjoys  no  power  to  regulate  industries  —  even  those 
which  are  national  in  character  —  the  states  use  their 
respective  powers  under  the  pressure  which  comes  from 
those  who  are  interested  in  increasing  the  industry  of  the 
commonwealth.  For  example,  it  is  stated  "the  glass 
workers  of  New  Jersey  oppose  any  attempt  to  prohibit 

1  See  above,  p.  54. 

2  Taken  from  Professor  Leacock's  paper  in  the  Proceedings  of  the 
American  Political  Science  Association,  1908,  pp.  37  ff. 


THE   REVIVAL   OF  DISSENT  309 

night  work  for  boys  under  sixteen  years  of  age  on  the 
ground  that  such  work  is  permitted  in  the  neighboring 
state  of  Pennsylvania."  In  1907,  in  South  Carolina, 
Georgia,  and  Alabama,  a  ten  year  old  child  could,  under 
the  law,  work  for  twelve  hours  a  day ;  North  Carolina 
had  sixty-six  mills  where  twelve  year  old  children  could 
do  twelve  hours'  night  work  under  the  law.  Although 
this  situation  was  somewhat  remedied  later,  the  advo 
cates  of  reform  were  resisted  at  every  point  by  the  in 
terested  parties  who  contended  that  in  competing  with 
New  England,  the  southern  states  had  to  take  advan 
tage  of  every  opportunity,  even  at  the  expense  of  the 
children. 

The  situation  may  be  described  in  the  language  of 
the  chief  factory  inspector  of  Ohio :  "  Industrially  as  well 
as  geographically  we  of  the  Ohio  Valley  are  one  people 
and  our  laws  should  be  uniform,  not  only  that  they  may 
be  the  easier  enforced,  but  in  justice  to  the  manufac 
turers  who  pursue  the  same  industry  in  the  several 
states  and  therefore  come  into  close  competition  with 
one  another."  Moreover,  if  a  state  enacts  an  important 
industrial  law,  it  may  find  its  work  in  vain  as  the  result 
of  a  decision  of  the  national  Supreme  Court,  or  of  the 
state  courts,  interpreting  the  FourJjeonth  Amendment. 

Another  example  of  a  national  interest  which  is  wholly 
beyond  the  reach  of  the  Federal  government,  under  a 
judicial  decision  reached  in  the  case  of  Paul  v.  Virginia 
in  1868,  is  that  of  insurance.  Although  Hamilton  and 
earlier  writers  on  the  Constitution  believed  that  the 
insurance  business  was  a  branch  of  interstate  commerce 
whose  regulation  was  vested  in  Congress,  the  Supreme 


310     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

Court  in  this  case  dealing  with  fire  insurance  declared 
that  the  act  of  issuing  a  policy  of  insurance  was  not  a 
transaction  of  commerce.  "The  policies,"  said  the 
Court,  "are  simple  contracts  of  indemnity  against  loss 
by  fire,  entered  into  between  the  corporations  and  the 
assured  for  a  consideration  paid  by  the  latter.  These 
contracts  are  not  articles  of  commerce  in  any  proper 
meaning  of  the  word;  they  are  not  subjects  of  trade 
and  barter  offered  in  the  market  as  something  having  an 
existence  and  value  independent  of  the  parties  to  them. 
.  .  .  Such  contracts  are  not  interstate  transactions, 
though  the  parties  may  be  domiciled  in  different  states. 
.  .  .  They  are  then  local  transactions  and  are  governed 
by  the  local  laws.  They  do  not  constitute  a  part  of 
the  commerce  between  the  states  any  more  than  a  con 
tract  for  the  purchase  and  sale  of  goods  in  Virginia  by  a 
citizen  of  New  York  whilst  in  Virginia  would  constitute 
a  portion  of  such  commerce." 

As  a  result  of  this  narrow  interpretation  of  the  com 
merce  clause,  the  vast  insurance  business  of  the  coun 
try,  national  in  character,  was  put  beyond  the  reach 
of  Congress,  and  at  the  mercy  of  the  legislatures  of 
the  several  commonwealths.  Under  these  circumstances, 
the  insurance  laws  of  the  United  States  were  in 
splendid  chaos.  "If  a  compilation  of  these  laws  were 
attempted,"  says  Mr.  Huebner,  "a  most  curious  spectacle 
would  result.  It  would  be  found  that  fifty-two  states 
and  territories  are  all  acting  along  independent  lines 
and  that  each,  as  has  been  correctly  said,  possessed  its 
own  schedule  of  taxations,  fees,  fines,  penalties,  obliga 
tions  and  prohibitions,  and  a  retaliatory  or  reciprocal 


THE   REVIVAL   OF   DISSENT  311 

provision  enabled  it  to  meet  the  highest  charges  any  other 
state  may  require  of  the  companies  of  any  other  states." 

A  still  better  example  of  confusion  in  our  system  is 
offered  by  the  corporation  laws  of  the  several  states. 
Great  industrial  corporations  are  formed  under  state 
laws.  While  many  contend  that  Congress  has  the  power 
to  compel  the  Federal  incorporation  of  all  concerns  doing 
an  interstate  business  and  thus  to  occupy  the  whole 
domain  of  corporation  law  involving  interstate  com 
merce,  this  radical  step  has  not  yet  been  taken.  Con 
gress  has  confined  itself  to  the  more  or  less  fruitless  task 
of  forbidding  combinations  in  restraint  of  interstate  trade. 

Under  these  circumstances,  there  appeared  the  anoma 
lous  condition  of  states  actually  advertising  in  the  news 
papers  and  bidding  against  each  other  in  offering  the 
corporations  special  opportunities  and  low  fees  for  the 
privilege  of  incorporating.  If  the  conscience  of  one 
state  became  enlightened  and  a  strict  corporation  law 
was  enacted,  the  result  was  simply  to  drive  the  irregular 
concerns  into  some  other  state  which  was  willing  to  sell 
its  privileges  for  the  small  fee  of  incorporation,  and  ask 
no  questions.  As  might  have  been  expected,  every 
variety  of  practice  existed  in  the  forty-eight  jurisdictions 
in  which  corporations  might  be  located. 

Not  only  was  there  the  greatest  diversity  in  these 
practices,  but  special  discriminations  were  often  made  in 
particular  states  against  concerns  incorporated  in  other 
states ;  and  on  top  of  all  this  there  was  a  vast  mass  of 
antitrust  legislation,  frequently  drastic  in  character 
or  loose  and  futile.  Often  it  was  the  product  of  a 
popular  clamor  against  large  business  undertakings, 


312      CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

and  often  it  was  the  result  of  the  effort  of  legislators  to 
"strike"  at  corporations.  Whatever  the  underlying 
motive,  it  was  generally  characterized  at  the  outset  by 
lack  of  uniformity  and  absence  of  any  large  view  of 
public  policy,  and  then  it  was  glossed  over  by  judicial 
decisions,  state  and  Federal,  until  it  was  a  fortunate 
corporation  official,  indeed,  who  knew  either  his  rights 
or  his  duties  under  the  law.  Moreover,  it  was  a  par 
ticularly  obtuse  attorney  who  could  not  lead  his  client 
unscathed  through  this  wonderland  of  legal  confusion. 
The  position  of  railway  corporations,  if  possible,  was 
more  anomalous  still.  Their  interstate  business  was 
subject  to  the  regulations  of  Congress  and  their  intra- 
state  business  to  the  control  of  the  state  legislatures. 
Although  there  existed,  in  theory,  a  dividing  line  be 
tween  these  two  classes  of  business,  there  were  always 
arising  concrete  cases  where  it  was  difficult  to  say  on 
which  side  of  the  line  they  would  fall  in  the  opinion 
of  the  Supreme  Court.  States  were  constantly  being 
enjoined  on  the  application  of  the  railways  for  their 
" interference  with  interstate  commerce";  and  when 
far-reaching  legislation  was  proposed  in  Congress,  the 
cry  went  up  that  the  rights  of  states  were  being  trampled 
upon.  If  X  shipped  a  carload  of  goods  to  Y  within  the 
borders  of  his  state,  he  paid  one  rate ;  if  he  shipped  it  to 
Z,  two  miles  farther  on  in  another  state,  he  paid  a  dif 
ferent  rate,  perhaps  less  than  in  the  first  instance.  In 
a  number  of  states  companies  owning  parallel  lines 
might  consolidate ;  in  others,  consolidation  was  for 
bidden.  According  to  a  report  of  the  Interstate  Com 
merce  Commission  in  1902,  the  states  were  equally  di- 


THE  REVIVAL   OF  DISSENT  313 

vided  on  this  proposition  as  to  the  consolidation  of  com 
peting  lines.  According  to  the  same  report,  if  a  railway 
company  was  guilty  of  unjust  discrimination  in  one  state, 
it  paid  a  fine  of  $50,  and  in  other  states  it  was  mulcted 
to  the  tune  of  $25,000.  At  the  same  time,  whoever 
obstructed  a  railway  track  in  Mississippi  was  liable  to 
three  months  in  jail ;  for  the  same  offense  in  New  York 
he  might  get  three  years ;  if,  perchance,  after  serving 
three  years  and  three  months  in  these  two  common 
wealths,  he  tried  the  experiment  again  in  Wyoming, 
he  might  in  the  mercy  of  the  court  be  sentenced  to 
death. 

A  further  element  of  confusion  was  added  by  the  in 
tervention  of  the  Federal  judiciary  in  declaring  state 
laws  invalid,  not  merely  when  they  conflicted  clearly 
with  the  execution  of  Federal  law,  but  on  constitutional 
grounds  which  meant,  for  practical  purposes,  whenever 
the  said  laws  were  not  in  harmony  with  the  ideas  of 
public  policy  entertained  by  the  courts  at  the  time. 
The  Federal  judiciary  in  regard  to  state  legislation 
relative  to  corporations  was,  therefore,  a  destructive,  not 
a  constructive,  body.  To  use  the  language  of  the  street, 
state  legislation  was  simply  "shot  to  pieces"  by  judicial 
decisions.  That  which  was  chaotic,  disjointed,  and 
founded  upon  no  uniformity  of  purpose  or  policy  to 
begin  with  was  riddled  and  torn  by  a  body  which  had 
no  power  for  positive  action. 

As  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  declared  in 
1903,  "One  of  the  chief  embarrassments  in  the  exercise 
of  adequate  government  control  over  the  organization, 
the  construction,  and  the  administration  of  railways  in 


314     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

the  United  States  is  found  in  the  many  sources  of  statu 
tory  authority  recognized  by  our  form  of  government. 
The  Federal  Constitution  provides  for  uniformity  in 
statutory  control,  so  far  as  interstate  commerce  is  con 
cerned,  but  it  does  not  touch  commerce  within  the  states, 
nor,  as  at  present  interpreted,  does  it  cover  the  organiza 
tion  of  railroad  corporations  or  the  construction  of  rail 
road  properties.  These  matters,  as  well  as  the  larger 
part  of  that  class  of  activities  included  under  the  police 
jurisdiction,  are  left  to  the  states.  Such  being  the  case, 
the  development  of  an  harmonious  and  uniform  railroad 
system  must  be  attained,  if  at  all,  by  one  of  two  methods. 
The  states  must  relinquish  to  the  Federal  government 
their  reserved  rights  over  internal  commerce,  or  having 
first  agreed  upon  fundamental  principles,  they  must, 
through  comity  and  convention,  work  out  an  harmonious 
system  of  statutory  regulation." 

This  was  the  situation  that  called  forth  the  demand 
for  the  national  regulation  of  large  corporate  enterprises, 
and  brought  about  the  demand  for  a  strengthening  of 
the  Federal  government,  either  by  a  constitutional 
amendment  or  judicial  interpretation,  which  received 
the  name  of  "New  Nationalism."  Wide  currency  was 
given  to  this  term  by  Mr.  Roosevelt,  in  his  speech  de 
livered  at  Ossawatomie  on  August  31,  1910.  After 
outlining  a  legislative  policy  which  he  deemed  to  be 
demanded  by  the  changed  economic  conditions  of  our 
time,  Mr.  Roosevelt  attacked  the  idea  of  "a  neutral 
zone  between  the  national  and  state  legislatures," 
guarded  only  by  the  Federal  judiciary ;  and  pleaded  for 


THE   REVIVAL   OF  DISSENT  315 

the  strengthening  of  the  Federal  government  so  as  to 
make  it  competent  for  every  national  purpose. 

"There  must  remain  no  neutral  ground,"  he  said,  "to 
serve  as  a  refuge  for  lawbreakers,  and  especially  for  law 
breakers  of  great  wealth,  who  can  hire  the  vulpine  legal 
cunning  which  will  teach  them  how  to  avoid  both  juris 
dictions.  It  is  a  misfortune  when  the  national  legis 
lature  fails  to  do  its  duty  in  providing  a  national  remedy 
so  that  the  only  national  activity  is  the  purely  negative 
activity  of  the  judiciary  in  forbidding  the  state  to  exer 
cise  the  power  in  the  premises. 

"I  do  not  ask  for  overcentralization ;  but  I  do  ask 
that  we  work  in  a  spirit  of  broad  and  far-reaching  na 
tionalism  when  we  work  for  what  concerns  our  people  as 
a  whole.  We  are  all  Americans.  Our  common  interests 
are  as  broad  as  the  continent.  I  speak  to  you  here 
exactly  as  I  would  speak  in  New  York  or  Georgia,  for 
the  most  vital  problems  are  those  which  affect  us  all 
alike.  The  national  government  belongs  to  the  whole 
American  people,  and  where  the  whole  American  people 
are  interested,  that  interest  can  be  guarded  effectively 
only  by  the  national  government.  The  betterment 
which  we  seek  must  be  accomplished,  I  believe,  mainly 
through  the  national  government. 

"The  American  people  are  right  in  demanding  that 
New  Nationalism  without  which  we  cannot  hope  to  deal 
with  new  problems.  The  New  Nationalism  puts  the 
national  need  before  sectional  or  personal  advantages. 
It  is  impatient  of  the  utter  confusion  that  results  from 
local  legislatures  attempting  to  treat  national  issues  as 
local  issues.  It  is  still  more  impatient  of  the  impotence 


316      CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

which  springs  from  overdivision  of  government  powers, 
the  impotence  which  makes  it  impossible  for  local 
selfishness  or  for  legal  cunning,  hired  by  wealthy  special 
interests,  to  bring  national  activities  to  a  deadlock. 
This  New  Nationalism  regards  the  executive  power  as 
the  steward  of  the  public  welfare.  It  demands  of  the 
judiciary  that  it  shall  be  interested  primarily  in  human 
welfare  rather  than  in  property,  just  as  it  demands  that 
the  representative  body  shall  represent  all  the  people 
rather  than  any  one  class  or  section  of  the  people." 


CHAPTER  XII 

MR.   TAFT  AND  REPUBLICAN  DISINTEGRATION 

IN  spite  of  the  stirring  of  new  economic  and  political 
forces  which  marked  Mr.  Roosevelt's  administration 
and  his  somewhat  radical  utterances  upon  occasion, 
there  was  no  prominent  leader  in  the  Republican 
party  in  1908,  except  Mr.  La  Follette  of  Wisconsin,  who 
was  identified  with  policies  which  later  came  to  be 
known  as  " progressive.'7  Although  Mr.  Hughes,  as 
governor  of  New  York,  had  enlisted  national  interest 
in  his  " fight  with  the  bosses,"  he  was,  by  temperament, 
conservative  rather  than  radical,  and  his  doctrines  were 
not  primarily  economic  in  character.  Other  Republican 
aspirants  were  also  of  a  conservative  cast  of  mind,  Mr. 
Fairbanks,  of  Indiana,  Mr.  Knox,  of  Pennsylvania,  Mr. 
Cannon,  of  Illinois,  all  of  whom  were  indorsed  for  the 
presidency  by  their  respective  states.  The  radical 
element  among  the  Republicans  hoped  that  Mr.  Roose 
velt  would  consent  to  accept  a  "second  elective  term"; 
but  his  flat  refusal  put  an  end  to  their  plans  for  re- 
nomination. 

Very  early  in  his  second  administration,  Mr.  Roosevelt 
made  it  clear  that  he  wanted  to  see  Mr.  W.  H.  Taft, 
then  Secretary  of  War,  designated  as  his  successor; 
and  by  the  judicious  employment  of  publicity  and  the 
proper  management  of  the  Federal  patronage  and  the 

317 


318     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

southern  Republican  delegates,  he  materially  aided  in 
the  nomination  of  Mr.  Taft  at  Chicago,  in  June,  1908. 
The  Republican  platform  of  that  year  advocated  a  re 
vision  of  the  tariff,  not  necessarily  downward,  but  with 
a  due  regard  to  difference  between  the  cost  of  production 
at  home  and  abroad ;  it  favored  an  amendment  of  the 
Sherman  anti-trust  law  in  such  a  manner  as  to  give 
more  publicity  and  the  Federal  government  more  super 
vision  and  control;  it  advocated  the  regulation  of  the 
issuance  of  injunctions  by  the  Federal  courts ;  it  indorsed 
conservation  and  pledged  the  party  to  "  unfailing  ad 
herence"  to  Mr.  Roosevelt's  policies.  This  somewhat 
noncommittal  platform  was  elaborated  by  Mr.  Taft  in 
his  speech,  after  a  conference  with  Mr.  Roosevelt;  the 
popular  election  of  Senators  was  favored,  an  income  tax 
of  some  kind  indorsed,  and  a  faintly  radical  tinge  given 
to  the  party  document. 

The  nomination  of  Mr.  Bryan  by  the  Democrats  was 
a  foregone  conclusion.  The  debacle  of  1904  had  dem 
onstrated  that  the  breach  of  1896  could  not  be  healed 
by  what  the  western  contingent  called  "the  Wall  Street 
crowd  "  ;  and  Mr.  Bryan  had  secured  complete  control  of 
the  party  organization.  The  convention  at  Denver  was 
a  personal  triumph  from  beginning  to  end.  Mr.  Bryan 
mastered  the  proceedings  and  wrote  the  platform,  and 
received  the  most  telling  ovation  ever  given  to  a  party 
leader  by  a  national  convention. 

Having  complete  control,  Mr.  Bryan  attempted  what 
the  politicians  who  talked  most  aggressively  about  the 
trusts  had  consistently  refused  to  do  —  he  attempted  to 
define  and  precisely  state  the  remedies  for  objection- 


REPUBLICAN   DISINTEGRATION  319 

able  combinations.  Other  leaders  had  discussed  "good " 
and  "bad  "  trusts,  but  they  had  not  attempted  the  mathe 
matics  of  the  problem.  In  the  platform  of  his  party,  Mr. 
Bryan  wrote :  "A  private  monopoly  is  indefensible  and 
intolerable.  We  therefore  favor  the  vigorous  enforce 
ment  of  the  criminal  law  against  guilty  trust  magnates 
and  officials  and  demand  the  enactment  of  such  addi 
tional  legislation  as  may  be  necessary  to  make  it  impos 
sible  for  private  monopoly  to  exist  in  the  United  States." 
In  this  paragraph,  there  is  of  course  nothing  new ;  but 
it  continues  :  "Among  the  additional  remedies  we  specify 
three :  first,  a  law  preventing  the  duplication  of  di 
rectors  among  competing  corporations ;  second,  a  license 
system  which  will,  without  abridging  the  rights  of  each 
state  to  create  corporations  or  its  right  to  regulate  as  it 
will  foreign  corporations  doing  business  within  its  limits, 
make  it  necessary  for  a  manufacturing  or  trading  cor 
poration  engaged  in  interstate  commerce  to  take  out  a 
federal  license  before  it  shall  be  permitted  to  control  as 
much  as  25  per  cent  of  the  product  in  which  it  deals,  a 
license  to  protect  the  public  from  watered  stock  and  to 
prohibit  the  control  by  such  corporation  of  more  than 
50  per  cent  of  the  total  amount  of  any  product  consumed 
in  the  United  States ;  and  third,  a  law  compelling  such 
licensed  corporations  to  sell  to  all  purchasers  in  all  parts 
of  the  country  on  the  same  terms  after  making  due 
allowance  for  cost  of  transportation." 

In  dealing  with  railway  corporations,  the  Democratic 
platform  proposed  concretely  the  valuation  of  railways, 
taking  into  consideration  the  physical  as  well  as  other 
elements;  an  increase  in  the  power  of  the  Interstate 


320     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

Commerce  Commission,  giving  it  the  initiative  with 
reference  to  rates  and  transportation  charges  and  the 
power  to  declare  any  rate  illegal  on  its  own  motion,  and  to 
inspect  railway  tariffs  before  permitting  them  to  go  into 
effect;  and  finally  an  efficient  supervision  and  regu 
lation  of  railroads  engaged  in  interstate  commerce. 

Mr.  Bryan's  proposals,  particularly  with  regard  to 
trusts,  were  greeted  with  no  little  derision  on  the  part 
of  many  practical  men  of  affairs,  but  they  had,  at  least, 
the  merit  of  being  more  definite  in  character  than  any 
statement  of  anti-trust  policy  which  had  been  made 
hitherto,  except  by  the  Socialists  in  advocating  public 
ownership.  The  Republicans,  for  example,  contented 
themselves  with  simply  proposing  the  amendment  of 
the  Sherman  law  in  such  a  manner  as  to  "give  to  the 
federal  government  greater  supervision  and  control  over 
and  secure  greater  publicity  in  the  management  of  that 
class  of  corporations  engaged  in  interstate  commerce 
having  power  and  opportunity  to  effect  monopolies." 

The  campaign  of  1908  was  without  any  specially 
dramatic  incidents.  The  long  stumping  tours  by  all 
candidates  did  not  seem  to  elicit  the  old-time  enthusiasm. 
The  corporation  interests  that  had  long  financed  the 
Republican  party  once  more  poured  out  treasure  like 
water  (as  the  Clapp  investigation  afterward  revealed 
in  1912) ;  and  Mr.  Bryan  attempted  a  counter-move 
ment  by  asking  for  small  contributions  from  each  member 
of  his  party,  but  he  was  sadly  disappointed  by  the  results. 
The  Democratic  national  committee  announced  that  it 
would  receive  no  contributions  from  corporations,  that 
it  would  accept  no  more  than  $10,000  from  any  indi- 


REPUBLICAN  DISINTEGRATION  321 

vidual,  and  that  it  would  make  public,  before  the  election, 
all  contributions  above  $100.  Mr.  Bryan  also  chal 
lenged  Mr.  Taft  to  make  public  the  names  of  the  con 
tributors  to  his  fund  and  the  amount  received  from  each. 
The  Republican  managers  replied  that  they  would  make 
known  their  contributors  in  due  time  as  required  by  the 
law  of  the  state  of  New  York  where  the  headquarters 
were  located,  and  Mr.  Taft  added  that  he  would  urge 
upon  Congress  the  enactment  of  a  law  compelling  full 
publicity  of  campaign  contributions.1 

In  the  election  which  followed,  Mr.  Bryan  was  de 
feated  for  the  third  time.  His  vote  was  somewhat 
larger  than  it  was  in  1900,  and  nearly  a  million  and  a 
half  above  that  cast  for  Mr.  Parker  in  1904.  But  Mr. 
Taft  more  than  held  the  strength  of  his  predecessor  as 
measured  by  the  popular  vote,  and  he  received  321 
electoral  votes  against  162  cast  for  his  opponent.  Once 
more,  the  conservative  press  announced,  the  country 
had  repudiated  Populism  and  demonstrated  its  sound, 
conservative  instincts. 

When  Mr.  Taft  took  the  oath  of  office  on  March  4, 
1909,  he  fell  heir,  on  his  own  admission,  to  more  trouble 
some  problems  than  had  been  the  lot  of  any  President 
since  Lincoln's  day.  His  predecessor  had  kept  the 
country  interested  and  entertained  by  the  variety  of  his 
speeches  and  recommendations  and  by  his  versatility 
in  dealing  with  all  the  social  questions  which  were  press- 

1  Congress  by  an  act  of  1907  forbade  campaign  contributions  by  cor 
porations,  in  connection  with  Federal  elections,  and  in  1910  and  1911 
enacted  laws  providing  for  the  publicity  of  expenses  in  connection  with 
elections  to  Congress. 
Y 


322     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

ing  to  the  front  during  his  administration.  Mr.  Roose 
velt  was  brilliant  in  his  political  operations,  although  he 
had  been  careful  about  attempting  to  bring  too  many 
things  to  concrete  issue.  Mr.  Taft  was  matter-of-fact 
in  his  outlook  and  his  expectations.  The  country  had 
been  undergoing  a  process  of  education,  as  he  put  it, 
and  now  the  time  had  come  for  taking  stock.  The  time 
had  come  for  putting  the  house  in  order  and  settling  down 
to  a  period  of  rest.  If  there  were  signs  on  the  horizon 
which  warned  Mr.  Taft  against  this  comfortable  view,  his 
spoken  utterances  gave  no  sign  of  recognition. 

Legislative  Measures 

The  first  task  which  confronted  him  was  the  thorny 
problem  of  the  tariff.  His  predecessor  had  given  the 
matter  little  attention  during  his  administration, 
apparently  for  the  reason  that  it  was,  in  his  opinion,  of 
little  consequence  as  compared  with  the  questions  of 
railways,  trusts,  great  riches,  and  labor.  But  action 
could  not  be  indefinitely  postponed.  Undoubtedly  there 
was  a  demand  in  many  parts  of  the  country  for  a  tariff 
revision.  How  widespread  it  was,  how  much  it  was  the 
creation  of  the  politicians,  how  intelligent  and  deep- 
seated  it  was,  no  one  could  tell.  Nevertheless,  more 
than  ten  years  had  elapsed  since  the  enactment  of  the 
Dingley  law  of  1897,  and  many  who  did  not  entertain 
radical  views  on  the  subject  at  all  joined  in  demanding  a 
revision  on  the  ground  that  conditions  had  materially 
changed.  The  Republican  platform  had  promised 
revision  on  the  basis  that  the  true  principle  of  protec- 


REPUBLICAN  DISINTEGRATION  323 

tion  was  best  maintained  by  the  imposition  of  such 
duties  "as  will  equal  the  difference  between  the  cost  of 
production  at  home  and  abroad,  together  with  a  reason 
able  profit  to  American  industries."  Mr.  Taft  in  his 
speech  of  acceptance  had  promised  revision,  on  the 
theory  that  some  schedules  were  too  high  and  others  too 
low;  and  his  language  during  the  campaign  had  been 
interpreted  to  mean  a  more  severe  downward  revision 
than  he  had  doubtless  contemplated. 

In  accordance  with  party  pledges  Mr.  Taft  called 
Congress  in  a  special  session  on  March  n,  1909,  and 
after  a  hotly  contested  battle  the  Payn£rAldrich_tarifI 
act  was  passed.  The  President  made  no  considerable 
effort  to  force  the  hand  of  Congress  one  way  or  the 
other,  and  he  accepted  the  measure  on  the  theory  that 
it  was  the  best  tariff  law  that  could  be  got  at  the  time. 
Indeed,  it  was  pointed  out  by  members  of  his  party 
that  the  bill  contained  "654  decreases  in  duty,  220 
increases,  and  1150  items  of  the  dutiable  list  in  which 
the  rates  were  unchanged."  It  was  also  stated  that 
the  bill  was  framed  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the 
party  platform  which  had  made  no  promise  of  a  general 
sweeping  reduction.  It  was  admitted,  however,  that 
precise  information  upon  the  difference  between  the  cost 
of  production  at  home  and  abroad  could  not  have  been 
obtained  in  time  for  this  revision,  but  a  tariff  board 
was  created  by  law  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  the 
desired  information,  on  the  basis  of  which  readjustments 
in  schedules  could  be  made  from  time  to  time. 

On  April  9,  1909,  the  Payne  tariff  act  passed  the 
House,  one  Republican  voting  against  it  and  four  Demo- 


324     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

crats  from  Louisiana  voting  in  favor  of  it.  This  vote, 
however,  was  of  no  significance ;  the  real  test  was  the 
vote  on  the  several  amendments  proposed  from  time 
to  time  to  the  original  bill,  and  on  these  occasions  the 
Democratic  lines  were  badly  broken.  On  April  12,  Mr. 
Aldrich  introduced  in  the  Senate  a  tariff  bill  which  had 
been  carefully  prepared  by  the  finance  committee  of 
which  he  was  chairman.  This  measure  followed  more 
closely  the  Dingley  law,  making  no  recommendations 
concerning  some  of  the  commodities  which  the  House 
had  placed  on  the  free  list,  and  passing  over  the  subject 
of  income  and  inheritance  taxes  without  remark.  The 
Aldrich  measure  was  bitterly  attacked  by  insurgent 
Republicans  from  the  West,  —  Senators  Dolliver  and 
Cummins,  of  Iowa,  La  Follette,  of  Wisconsin,  Beveridge, 
of  Indiana,  and  Bristow,  of  Kansas,  —  who  held  out  to  the 
last  and  voted  against  the  bill,  even  as  amended,  on  its 
final  passage,  July  8.  The  conference  committee  of  the 
two  Houses  settled  their  differences  by  July  30,  and  on 
August  5  the  tariff  bill  became  a  law. 

There  were  several  features  of  the  transaction  which 
deserve  special  notice.  Very  early  in  the  Senate  pro 
ceedings  on  the  bill,  an  income  tax  provision  was  intro 
duced  by  Senators  Cummins  and  Bailey,  and  it  looked 
as  if  enough  support  could  be  secured  from  the  two 
parties  to  enact  it  into  law.  Although  President  Taft, 
in  his  acceptance  speech,  had  expressed  an  opinion  to 
the  effect  that  an  income  tax  could  be  constitutionally 
enacted  notwithstanding  the  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  in  the  Income  Tax  cases,  he  blocked  the  proposal 
to  couple  an  income  tax  measure  with  the  tariff  bill, 


REPUBLICAN  DISINTEGRATION  325 

by  sending  a  special  message  on  June  16,  recommending 
the  passage  of  a  constitutional  amendment  empowering 
Congress  to  levy  a  general  income  tax,  and  advising  a 
tax  on  the  earnings  of  corporations.  His  suggestions 
were  accepted  by  Congress.  The  proposed  amendment 
to  the  Constitution  was  passed  unanimously  by  the 
Senate,  and  by  an  overwhelming  majority  in  the  House, 1 
and  a  tax  on  the  net  incomes  of  corporations  was  also 
adopted.  A  customs  court  to  be  composed  of  five 
judges  to  hear  appeals  in  customs  cases  was  set  up,  and 
a  tariff  commission  to  study  all  aspects  of  the  question, 
particularly  the  differences  between  cost  of  production 
in  the  United  States  and  abroad,  was  created. 

Revision  of  the  tariff  had  always  been  a  thankless 
task  for  any  party.  The  Democrats  had  found  it  such 
in  1894  when  their  bill  had  failed  to  please  any  one, 
including  President  Cleveland,  and  when  for  collateral 
or  independent  reasons  a  period  of  industrial  depression 
had  set  in.  The  McKinley  bill  of  1890  had  aroused  a 
storm  of  protest  which  had  swept  the  Republicans  out 
of  power,  and  it  is  probable  that  the  Dingley  tariff  of 
1897  would  have  created  similar  opposition  if  it  could 
have  been  disentangled  from  the  other  overshadowing 
issues  growing  out  of  the  Spanish  War.  The  Payne- 
Aldrich  tariff  likewise  failed  to  please;  but  its  failure 
was  all  the  more  significant  because  its  passage  was 
opposed  by  such  a  large  number  of  prominent  party 
members.  The  Democrats,  as  was  naturally  to  be 
expected,  made  all  they  could  out  of  the  situation,  and 

Sixteenth  Amendment  was  proclaimed  in  force  on  February  25, 


326     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

cried  ''Treason."  Even  what  appeared  to  be  a  conces 
sion  to  the  radicals,  the  adoption  of  a  resolution  provid 
ing  for  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  authorizing 
the  imposition  of  an  income  tax,  was  not  accepted  as  a 
consolation,  but  was  looked  upon  as  a  subterfuge  to 
escape  the  probable  dilemma  of  having  an  income  tax 
law  passed  immediately  and  submitted  to  the  Supreme 
Court  again. 

Notwithstanding  the  dissensions  within  his  party, 
Mr.  Taft  continued  steadily  to  press  a  legislative  policy 
which  he  had  marked  out.  In  a  special  message  on 
January  7,  1910,  he  recommended  the  creation j)f  ajxmrt 
of  commerce  to i_Jbave_  jurisdiction,  among  other  things, 
over  appeal^  from  the  Interstate^Cp^mmexceJIjammis- 
sion.  This  proposal  was  enacted,  in  to  law_onj"une  18, 
151  o_;  and  the  appointments  were  duly  made  by  the 
President.  The  career  of  the  tribunal  was  not,  how 
ever,  particularly  happy.  Some  of  its  decisions  against 
the  rulings  of  the  Commission  were  popularly  regarded 
as  too  favorable  to  railway  interests ;  one  of  the  judges, 
Mr.  Archbald,  of  Pennsylvania,  was  impeached  and 
removed  on  the  ground  that  his  private  relations  with 
certain  railway  corporations  were  highly  questionable ; 
and  at  length  Congress  in  1913  terminated  its  short 
life. 

Acting  upon  a  recommendation  of  the  President, 
Congress,  in  June,  1910,  passed  a  la.W-firmdgling  for  the 
establishment  of  a^p.o^tiiLsavings^system  in  connection 
with  the  post  offices.  The  law^authorized  the  payment 
of  two  per  cent  interest  on  money  deposited  at  the  desig 
nated  post  offices  and  the  distribution  of  all  such 


REPUBLICAN  DISINTEGRATION  327 

deposits  among  state  and  national  banks  under  the  pro 
tection  of  bonds  placed  with  the  Treasurer  of  the  United 
States.  The  scheme  was  applied  experimentally  at  a 
few  offices  and  then  rapidly  extended,  until  within  two 
years  it  was  in  operation  at  more  than  12,000  offices 
and  over  $20,000,000  was  on  deposit.  The  plan  which 
had  been  branded  as  "  socialistic "  a  few  years  before 
when  advocated  by  the  Populists  was  now  hailed  as  an 
enlightened  reform,  even  by  the  banks  as  well  as  business 
men,  for  they  discovered  that  it  brought  out  secret 
hoardings  and  gave  the  banks  the  benefit  at  a  low  rate 
of  interest  —  lower  than  that  paid  by  ordinary  savings 
concerns. 

The  postal  savings  system  was  shortly  supplemented 
by  a  system  of  parcels  post.  Mr.  Taft  strongly  advo 
cated  the  establishment  of  such  a  system,  and  it  had  been 
urged  in  Congress  for  many  years,  but  had  been  blocked 
by  the  opposition  of  the  express  companies,  for  obvious 
reasons,  and  by  country  merchants  who  feared  that  they 
would  be  injured  by  the  increased  competition  of  the 
mail  order  departments  of  city  stores.  Finally,  by 
a  law  approved  on  August  24,  1912,  Congress  made 
provision  for  the  establishment  of  this  long- delayed 
service,  and  it  was  put  into  effect  on  January  i,  1913, 
thus  enabling  the  United  States  to  catch  up  with  the 
postal  systems  of  other  enlightened  nations.  Although 
the  measure  was  sharply  criticized  for  its  rates  and  classi 
fications,  it  was  generally  approved  and  regarded  as  the 
promising  beginning  of  an  institution  long  desired. 

While  helping  to  add  these  new  burdens  to  the  post- 
office  administration.  Mr.  Taft  directed  his  attention  to 


328     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

the  urgent  necessity  for  more  businesslike  methods  on 
the  part  of  the  national  administration  in  general,  and, 
on  his  recommendation,  Congress  appropriated  in  1910 
$100,000  "to  enable  the  President  to  inquire  into  the 
methods  of  transacting  the  public  business  of  the  Execu 
tive  Department  and  other  government  establishments, 
and  to  recommend  to  Congress  such  legislation  as  may 
be  necessary."  A  board  of  experts,  known  as  the  Econ 
omy  and  Efficiency  Commission,  was  thereupon  appointed, 
and  it  set  to  work  examining  the  several  branches  of 
administration  with  a  view  to  discovering  wasteful 
and  obsolete  methods  in  use  and  recommending  changes 
and  practices  which  would  result  in  saving  money  and 
producing  better  results.  Among  other  things,  the 
Commission  undertook  an  examination  of  the  problem 
of  a  national  budget  along  lines  followed  by  the  best 
European  governments,  and  it  suggested  the  abandon 
ment  of  the  time-honored  "  log-rolling "  process  of  mak 
ing  appropriations,  in  favor  of  a  consistent,  consolidated, 
and  businesslike  budget  based  upon  national  needs 
and  not  the  demands  of  localities  for  Federal  "  improve 
ments,"  regardless  of  their  utility. 

Although  he  was  sharply  attacked  by  the  advocates 
of  conservation  for  appointing  and  supporting  as  Secre 
tary  of  the  Interior,  Mr.  R.  A.  Ballinger,  who  was 
charged  with  favoring  certain  large  corporations  seek 
ing  public  land  grants,  Mr.  Taft  devoted  no  little  atten 
tion  to  the  problem  of  conserving  the  natural  resources. 
In  1910,  Congress  enacted  two  important  laws  bearing 
on  the  subject.  By  a  measure  approved  June  22,  it 
provided  for  agriqultural  entries  on  coal  lands  and  the 


REPUBLICAN  DISINTEGRATION  329 

separation  of  the  surface  from  the  mineral  rights  in 
such  lands.  By  another  law,  approved  three  days  later, 
Congress  made  provision  for  the  withdrawal  of  certain 
lands  for  water-power  sites,  irrigation,  classification 
of  lands,  and  other  public  purposes.  These  laws  settled 
some  questions  of  legality  which  had  been  raised  with 
reference  to  earlier  executive  action  in  withdrawing 
lands  from  entry  and  gave  the  President  definite  author 
ity  to  control  important  aspects  of  conservation. 

From  the  opening  of  his  administration  Mr.  Taft 
used  his  influence  in  every  legitimate  way  to  assist  in 
the  development  of  the  movement  for  international 
peace.  In  his  acceptance  speech,  at  the  opening  of  his 
campaign  for  election,  he  had  remarked  upon  the  signifi 
cance  and  importance  of  the  arbitration  treaties  which 
had  been  signed  between  nations  and  upon  the  contri 
bution  of  Mr.  Roosevelt's  administration  to  the  cause  of 
world  peace.  Following  out  his  principles,  Mr.  Taft 
signed  with  France  and  England  in  August,  1911,  gen 
eral  arbitration  treaties  expanding  the  range  of  the  older 
agreements  so  as  to  include  all  controversies  which  were 
"  justiciable "  in  character,  even  though  they  might 
involve  questions  of  "  vital  interest  and  national  honor." 
The  treaties,  which  were  hailed  by  the  peace  advocates 
with  great  acclaim,  met  a  cold  reception  in  the  Senate 
which  ratified  them  on  March  7,  1912,  only  after  making 
important  amendments  that  led  to  their  abandonment. 

Among  the  most  significant  of  Mr.  Taft's  acts  were 
his  appointments  of  the  Supreme  Court  judges.  On  the 
death  of  Chief  Justice  Fuller,  in  1910,  he  selected  for  that 


330     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

high  post  Associate  Justice  White.  In  the  course  of  his 
administration,  Mr.  Taft  also  had  occasion  to  select 
five  associate  justices,  and  he  appointed  Mr.  Horace  H. 
Lurton,  of  Tennessee,  Charles  E.  Hughes,  governor  of 
New  York,  Mr.  Willis  Van  Devanter,  of  Wyoming, 
Mr.  Joseph  R.  Lamar,  of  Georgia,  and  Mr.  Mahlon 
Pitney,  of  New  Jersey.  Thus  within  four  years  the 
President  was  able  to  designate  a  majority  of  the  judges 
of  the  most  powerful  court  in  the  world,  and  to  select 
the  Chief  Justice  who  presided  over  it. 

It  was  hardly  to  be  expected  that  the  exercise  of  such 
a  significant  power  would  escape  criticism,  particularly 
in  view  of  the  nature  of  the  cases  which  are  passed  upon 
by  that  Court.  Mr.  Bryan  was  particularly  severe  in 
his  attacks,  charging  the  President  with  deliberately 
packing  the  Court.  "You  appointed  to  the  Chief  Jus 
ticeship  of  the  Supreme  Court,"  he  said,  "  Justice  White 
who  thirteen  years  ago  took  the  trusts'  side  of  the  trust 
question.1  .  .  .  You  appointed  Governor  Hughes  to 
the  Supreme  Court  bench  after  he  had  interpreted  your 
platform  to  suit  the  trusts."  Mr.  Bryan  also  demanded 
that  Mr.  Taft  let  the  people  know  "the  influences" 
that  dictated  his  appointments.  Mr.  Bryan  attacked 
particularly  the  selection  of  Mr.  Van  Devanter,  declar 
ing  that  the  latter,  by  his  decisions  in  the  lower  court, 
was  a  notorious  favorite  of  corporation  interests.  Mr. 
Taft  looked  upon  these  attacks  as  insults  to  himself 
and  the  judges,  and  treated  them  with  the  scant  courtesy 
which,  in  his  opinion,  they  deserved.  The  episode, 
however,  was  of  no  little  significance  in  stirring  up  pub- 

1  See  below,  p.  332. 


REPUBLICAN  DISINTEGRATION  331 

lie  interest  in  the  constitution  of  a  tribunal  that  was  tra 
ditionally  supposed  to  be  "  non-political "  in  its  character. 

The  Anti-Trust  Cases 

Mr.  Taft  approached  the  trust  problem  with  the  pre 
conceptions  of  the  lawyer  who  believes  that  the  indefinite 
dissolution  of  combinations  is  possible  under  the  law. 
His  predecessor  had,  it  is  true,  instituted  many  pro 
ceedings  against  trusts,  but  there  was  a  certain  lack  of 
sharpness  in  his  tone,  which  was  doubtless  due  to  the 
fact  that  he  believed  and  openly  declared  that  indis 
criminate  prosecutions  under  the  Sherman  law  (which 
was,  in  his  opinion,  unsound  in  many  features)  were 
highly  undesirable.  Mr.  Taft,  on  the  other  hand, 
apparently  looked  at  the  law  and  not  the  economics  of 
the  problem.  During  Harrison's  administration  there 
had  been  four  bills  in  equity  and  three  indictments 
under  the  Sherman  law;  during  Cleveland's  adminis 
tration,  four  bills  in  equity,  two  indictments,  two  infor 
mations  for  contempt;  during  McKinley's  administra 
tion,  three  bills  in  equity.  Mr.  Roosevelt  had  to  his 
record,  eighteen  bills  in  equity,  twenty-five  indictments, 
and  one  forfeiture  proceeding.  Within  three  years,  Mr. 
Taft  had  twenty-two  bills  in  equity  and  forty-five 
indictments  to  his  credit. 

The  very  vigor  with  which  Mr.  Taft  pressed  the  cases 
against  the  trusts  did  more,  perhaps,  to  force  a  consider 
ation  of  the  whole  question  by  the  public  than  did  Mr. 
Roosevelt's  extended  messages.  As  has  been  pointed 
out,  the  members  of  Congress  who  enacted  the  Sherman 


332     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

law  were  very  much  confused  in  their  notions  as  to  what 
trusts  really  were  and  what  combinations  and  practices 
were  in  fact  to  be  considered  in  restraint  of  trade.1 
And  it  must  be  confessed  that  the  decisions  and  opinions 
of  the  courts,  up  to  the  beginning  of  Mr.  Taft's  adminis 
tration,  had  not  done  much  to  clarify  the  law.  In  the 
Trans-Missouri  case,  decided  in  1897, the  Supreme  Court 
had  declared  in  effect  that  all  combinations  in  restraint 
of  trade,  whether  reasonable  or  unreasonable,  were  in 
fact  forbidden  by  the  law,  Justice  White  dissenting.2 

This  was  not  done  by  the  Court  inadvertently.  Mr. 
Justice  Peckham,  speaking  for  the  majority  of  the  Court, 
distinctly  marked  the  fact  that  arguments  had  been 
directed  to  that  tribunal,  "  against  the  inclusion  of  all 
contracts  in  restraint  of  trade,  as  provided  for  by  the 
language  of  the  act  .  .  .  upon  the  alleged  presumption 
that  Congress,  notwithstanding  the  language  of  the  act, 
could  not  have  intended  to  embrace  all  contracts,  but 
only  such  as  were  in  unreasonable  restraint  of  trade. 
Under  these  circumstances  we  are,  therefore,  asked  to 
hold  that  the  act  of  Congress  excepts  contracts  which 
are  not  in  unreasonable  restraint  of  trade,  and  which 
only  keep  rates  up  to  a  reasonable  price,  notwithstanding 
the  language  of  the  act  makes  no  such  exception.  In  other 
words,  we  are  asked  to  read  into  the  act  by  way  of  judi 
cial  legislation  an  exception  that  is  not  placed  there  by 
the  lawmaking  branch  of  the  government.  ...  It 
may  be  that  the  policy  evidenced  by  the  passage  of  the 
act  itself  will,  if  carried  out,  result  in  disaster  to  the 

1  See  above,  p.  135. 

2  United  States  v.  Trans-Missouri  Freight  Assn.,  166  U.  S.  290. 


REPUBLICAN  DISINTEGRATION  333 

roads.  .  .  .  Whether  that  will  be  the  result  or  not  we 
do  not  know  and  cannot  predict.  These  considerations 
are,  however,  not  for  us.  If  the  act  ought  to  read  as 
contended  for  by  the  defendants,  Congress  is  the  body 
to  amend  it,  and  not  this  Court  by  a  process  of  judicial 
legislation  wholly  unjustifiable." 

It  was  no  doubt  fortunate  for  the  business  interests 
of  the  country  that  no  earlier  administration  undertook 
a  searching  and  drastic  prosecution  of  combinations 
under  the  Sherman  law ;  for  in  the  view  of  the  language 
of  the  Court  it  is  difficult  to  imagine  any  kind  of 
important  interconcern  agreement  which  would  not 
be  illegal.  This  very  delay  in  the  vigorous  enforcement 
of  the  law  enabled  the  country  at  large  to  take  a  new 
view  of  the  trusts  and  to  throw  aside  much  of  the 
prejudice  which  had  characterized  politics  in  the  eighties 
and  early  nineties.  The  lawless  practices  of  the  great 
combinations  and  their  corrupting  influence  were  exten 
sively  discovered  and  understood ;  but  it  became  in 
creasingly  difficult  for  demagogues  to  convince  the 
public  that  any  good  could  accrue  to  anybody  from  the 
ruthless  attempts  to  disintegrate  all  large  combinations 
in  business.  The  more  radical  sections,  which  had 
formerly  applauded  the  platform  orator  in  his  tirades 
against  trusts,  were  turning  away  from  indiscriminate 
abuse  and  listening  more  attentively  than  ever  to  the 
Socialists  who  held,  and  had  held  for  half  a  century,  to 
the  doctrine  that  the  trusts  were  a  natural  product  of 
economic  evolution  and  were  merely  paving  the  way  to 
national  ownership  on  a  large  scale. 

Consequently,  between  the  two  forces,  the  represent- 


334      CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

atives  of  corporate  interests  on  the  one  hand  and  the 
spokesmen  for  socialistic  doctrines  on  the  other,  the 
old  demand  for  the  immediate  and  unconditional  destruc 
tion  of  the  trusts  was  sharply  modified.  Corporations 
came  to  see  that  undesirable  as  "  government  regulation  " 
might  be,  it  was  still  more  desirable  than  destruction. 
They,  therefore,  drew  to  themselves  a  large  support 
from  sections  of  the  population  which  did  not  share 
socialistic  ideas,  and  still  could  see  nothing  but  folly 
in  attempting  to  resist  what  seemed  to  have  the  force  of 
nature.  Many  working-class  representatives  ceased 
to  wage  war  on  the  trusts  as  such,  for  they  did  not  expect 
to  get  into  the  oil,  copper,  or  steel  business  for  them 
selves  ;  and  the  farmers,  on  account  of  rising  prices  and 
a  large  appreciation  in  land  values,  listened  with  less 
gladness  to  the"war-to-the-hilt"  orator.  Nevertheless, 
a  large  section  of  the  population,  composed  particularly 
of  business  men  and  manufacturers  of  the  lesser  indus 
tries,  hoped  to  " reestablish "  what  they  called  "fair 
conditions  of  competition"  by  dissolving  into  smaller 
units  the  huge  corporations  that  dominated  industry. 

In  response  to  this  demand,  Mr.  Taft  pushed  through 
the  cases  against  the  Standard  Oil  Company  and  the 
American  Tobacco  Company;  and  in  May,  1911,  the 
Supreme  Court  handed  down  decisions  dissolving  these 
combinations.  In  the  course  of  his  opinions,  Chief 
Justice  White,  who  had  dissented  in  the  Trans-Missouri 
case  mentioned  above,  gave  an  interpretation  of  the 
Sherman  Act  which  was  regarded  quite  generally  as 
an  abandonment  of  the  principles  enunciated  by  the 
Court  in  that  case.  He  said :  "The  statute,  under  this 


REPUBLICAN  DISINTEGRATION  335 

view,  evidenced  the  intent  not  to  restrain  the  right  to 
make  and  enforce  contracts,  whether  resulting  from  com 
binations  or  otherwise,  which  did  not  unduly  restrainmter- 
state  and  foreign  commerce,  but  to  protect  the  commerce 
from  being  restrained  by  methods,  whether  new  or  old, 
which  would  constitute  an  interference  that  is  an  undue 
restraint."  Thus  the  Chief  Justice  restated  the  doc 
trine  of  "  reasonableness "  which  he  had  formulated  in 
his  dissenting  opinion  in  the  earlier  case,  but  this  time 
as  the  spokesman  of  the  Court.  It  is  true,  he  attempted 
with  great  dialectic  skill  to  reconcile  the  old  and  the  new 
opinions,  and  make  it  appear  that  there  had  been  no 
change  in  the  theories  of  the  Court ;  but  his  attempt  was 
not  convincing  to  every  one,  for  many  shared  the  view 
expressed  by  Justice  Harlan,  to  the  effect  that  the 
attempt  at  reconciliation  partook  of  the  nature  of  a 
statement  that  black  is  white  and  white  is  black. 

The  effect  of  these  decisions  was  the  dissolution  of 
the  two  concerns  into  certain  constituent  parts  which 
were  supposed  to  reestablish  competition;  but  no  mar- 
velously  beneficial  economic  results  seem  to  have 
accrued.  The  inner  circles  of  the  two  combinations 
made  huge  sums  from  the  appreciation  of  stocks;  the 
prices  of  gasoline  and  some  other  oil  products  mounted 
with  astonishing  speed  to  a  higher  rate  than  ever  before ; 
and  smaller  would-be  competitors  declared  that  the 
constituent  companies  were  so  large  that  competition 
with  them  was  next  to  impossible.  No  one  showed  any 
great  enthusiasm  about  the  results  of  the  prosecution 
and  decisions,  except  perhaps  some  eminent  leaders  in 
the  business  world,  who  shared  the  opinion  of  Mr.  J.  P. 


336     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

Morgan  that  the  doctrines  of  the  Court  were  "entirely 
satisfactory,"  and  to  be  taken  as  meaning  that  indis 
criminate  assaults  on  large  concerns,  merely  because 
of  their  size,  would  not  be  tolerated  by  the  Court. 
Radical  "  trust-breakers  "  cried  aloud  that  they  had  been 
betrayed  by  the  eminent  tribunal,  and  a  very  large 
section  of  the  population  which  had  come  to  regard 
trusts  as  a  " natural  evolution"  looked  upon  the  whole 
affair  as  an^anticlimax.  .Mr.  Taft,  in  a  speech  shortly 
after  the  decisions  of  the  Court,  expressed  his  pleasure 
at  the  outcome  of  the  action  and  invited  the  confidence 
of  the  country  in  the  policy  announced.  He  had  carried 
a  great  legal  battle  to  its  conclusion,  only  to  find  those 
who  cheered  the  loudest  in  the  beginning,  indifferent  at 
the  finish. 

The  Overthrow  of  Speaker  Cannon 

From  the  beginning  of  his  administration,  it  was 
apparent  that  Mr.  Taft's  party  in  Congress  was  not  in 
that  state  of  harmony  which  presaged  an  uneventful 
legislative  career.  The  vote  on  the  tariff  bill,  both  in 
the  Senate  and  the  House,  showed  no  little  dissatisfac 
tion  with  the  way  in  which  the  affairs  of  the  party  were 
being  managed.  The  acrimony  in  the  tariff  debate  had 
been  disturbing,  and  the  attacks  on  Speaker  Cannon 
from  his  own  party  colleagues  increased  in  frequency 
and  virulence  inside  and  outside  of  Congress. 

Under  this  astute  politician  and  keen  parliamentary 
manager,  a  system  of  legislative  procedure  had  grown 
up  in  the  House,  which  concentrated  the  management  of 


REPUBLICAN  DISINTEGRATION  337 

business  in  the  hands  of  a  few  members,  while  pre 
serving  the  outward  signs  of  democracy  within  the  party. 
The  Speaker  enjoyed  the  power  of  appointing  all  of  the 
committees  of  the  House  and  of  designating  the  chair 
men  thereof.  Under  his  power  to  object  to  a  request 
for  "  unanimous  consent/'  he  could  refuse  to  recognize 
members  asking  for  the  ear  of  the  chamber  under  that 
privilege.  He,  furthermore,  exercised  his  general  right 
of  recognition  in  such  a  manner  as  to  favor  those  mem 
bers  who  were  in  the  good  graces  of  the  inner  circle, 
which  had  naturally  risen  to  power  through  long  service. 

In  addition,  there  had  been  created  a  powerful  engine, 
known  as  the  "rules  committee"  which  could,  substan 
tially  at  any  time,  set  aside  the  regular  operations  of  the 
House,  fix  the  limits  of  debate,  and  force  the  considera 
tion  of  any  particular  bill.  This  committee  was  com 
posed  of  the  Speaker  and  two  colleagues  selected  by 
himself,  for,  although  there  were  two  Democratic  repre 
sentatives  on  the  committee,  they  did  not  enjoy  any 
influence  in  its  deliberations.  The  outward  signs  of 
propriety  were  given  to  this  enginery  by  the  election  of 
the  Speaker  by  the  party  caucus,  but  the  older  members 
and  shrewd  managers  had  turned  the  caucus  into  a  mere 
ratifying  machine. 

Under  this  system,  which  was  perfected  through  the 
long  tenure  of  power  enjoyed  by  the  Republicans,  a 
small  group  of  managers,  including  Mr.  Cannon,  came 
to  a  substantial  control  over  all  the  business  of  the 
House.  A  member  could  not  secure  recognition  for  a 
measure  without  "seeing"  the  Speaker  in  advance;  the 
older  members  monopolized  the  important  committees; 


338     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

and  a  measure  introduced  by  a  private  member  had  no 
chance  for  consideration,  to  say  nothing  of  passage, 
unless  its  sponsor  made  his  peace  with  the  party  man 
agers.  This  system  was  by  no  means  without  its 
advantages.  It  concentrated  authority  in  a  few  emi 
nent  party  spokesmen  and  the  country  came  to  under 
stand  that  some  one  was  at  last  responsible  for  what 
happened  in  the  House.  The  obvious  disadvantage 
was  the  use  of  power  to  perpetuate  a  machine  and  policies 
which  did  not  in  fact  represent  the  country  or  the  party. 
Furthermore,  the  new  and  younger  members  could  not 
expect  to  achieve  anything  until  they  had  submitted 
to  the  proper  " party  discipline." 

If  anything  went  wrong,  it  soon  became  popular  to 
attribute  the  evil  to  "  Cannon  and  his  system."  At 
tacks  upon  them  became  especially  bitter  in  the  cam 
paign  of  1908  and  particularly  venomous  after  the 
passage  of  the  Aldrich-Payne  tariff  act.  At  length,  in 
March,  1910,  by  a  clever  piece  of  parliamentary  manipu 
lation,  some  "insurgent"  Republicans  were  able  to 
present  an  amendment  to  the  rules  ousting  the  Speaker 
from  membership  in  the  rules  committee,  increasing  the 
number,  and  providing  for  election  by  the  House.  Mr. 
Cannon  was  forced  to  rule  on  the  regularity  of  this 
amendment,  and  he  decided  against  it.  On  appeal 
from  the  decision  of  the  chair,  the  Speaker  was  defeated 
by  a  combination  of  Democrats  and  insurgent  Republi 
cans,  and  the  committee  on  rules  was  reconstructed.  A 
motion  to  declare  the  Speakership  vacant  was  defeated, 
however,  because  only  eight  insurgents  supported  it, 
and  accordingly  Mr.  Cannon  was  permitted  to  serve 


REPUBLICAN  DISINTEGRATION  339 

out  his  term.  Although  this  was  heralded  as  "a  great 
victory,"  it  was  of  no  consequence  in  altering  the  man 
agement  of  business  in  that  session ;  but  it  was  a  solemn 
portent  of  the  defeat  for  the  Republican  party  which 
lay  ahead  in  the  autumn. 

Dissensions 

The  second  half  of  Mr.  Taft's  administration  was 
marked  by  the  failure  to  accomplish  many  results  on 
which  he  had  set  his  mind.  The  election  of  1910  showed 
that  the  country  was  swinging  back  to  the  Democratic 
party  once  more.  In  that  year,  the  Democrats  elected 
governors  in  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  New  York, 
New  Jersey,  Indiana,  and  some  other  states  which  had 
long  been  regarded  as  Republican.  The  Democrats 
also  carried  the  House  of  Representatives,  securing 
227  members  to  163  Republicans  and  i  Socialist,  Mr. 
Berger,  of  Wisconsin.  Although  many  conservative 
Republican  leaders,  like  Mr.  Cannon,  Mr.  Payne,  and 
Mr.  Dalzell,  were  returned,  their  position  in  the  minority 
was  seriously  impaired  by  the  election  of  many  "insur 
gent"  Republicans  from  the  West,  who  were  out  of  har 
mony  with  the  old  methods  of  the  party. 

In  view  of  this  Democratic  victory,  it  was  inevitable 
that  Mr.  Taft  should  have  trouble  over  the  tariff.  In 
accordance  with  the  declarations  of  the  Republican 
platform,  he  had  recommended  and  secured  the  creation, 
in  1909,  of  a  tariff  board  designed  to  obtain  precise  infor 
mation  on  the  relation  of  the  tariff  to  production  and 
labor  at  home  and  abroad.  The  work  of  this  board  fell 


340     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

into  three  main  divisions.  It  was,  in  the  first  place, 
instructed  to  take  each  article  in  the  tariff  schedule  and 
"  secure  concise  information  regarding  the  nature  of  the 
article,  the  chief  sources  of  supply  at  home  and  abroad, 
the  methods  of  its  production,  its  chief  uses,  statistics 
of  production,  imports  and  exports,  with  an  estimate  of 
the  ad  valorem  equivalent  for  all  specific  duties."  In 
the  second  place,  it  was  ordered  to  compile  statistics  on 
the  cost  of  production  at  home  and  abroad  so  that  some 
real  information  might  be  available  as  to  the  difference, 
with  a  view  to  discovering  the  amount  of  protection 
necessary  to  accomplish  the  real  purposes  of  a  "scien 
tific"  tariff.  Finally,  the  board  was  instructed  to 
secure  accurate  information  as  to  prices  at  home  and 
abroad  and  as  to  the  general  conditions  of  competition 
in  the  several  industries  affected  by  the  tariff. 

If  there  was  to  be  any  protection  at  all,  it  was  obvious 
that  an  immense  amount  of  precise  information  was 
necessary  to  the  adjustment  of  schedules  in  such  a 
manner  as  not  to  give  undue  advantages  to  American 
manufacturers  and  thus  encourage  sloth  and  obsolete 
methods  on  their  part.  Such  was  the  view  taken  by 
Mr.  Taf t  and  the  friends  of  the  tariff  board ;  but  the 
Democratic  Congress  elected  in  1910  gave  the  outward 
signs  of  a  determination  to  undertake  a  speedy  and 
considerable  "  down  ward  revision,"  regardless  of  any 
"scientific"  information  that  might  be  collected  by  the 
administration.  There  was  doubtless  some  demand  in 
the  country  for  such  a  revision,  and  furthermore  it 
was  "good  politics"  for  the  leaders  of  the  new  House 
to  embarrass  the  Republican  President  as  much  as 


REPUBLICAN  DISINTEGRATION  341 

possible.  The  opportunity  was  too  inviting  to  be 
disregarded,  particularly  with  a  presidential  election 
approaching. 

Consequently,  the  House,  in  1911,  passed  three  impor 
tant  tariff  measures:  a  farmers'  free  list  bill  placing 
agricultural  implements,  boots  and  shoes,  wire  fence, 
meat,  flour,  lumber,  and  other  commodities  on  the  free 
list;  a  measure  revising  the  famous  "Schedule  K," 
embracing  wool  and  woolen  manufactures;  and  a  law 
reducing  the  duties  on  cotton  manufactures,  chemicals, 
paints,  metals,  and  other  commodities.  With  the  sup 
port  of  the  "insurgent"  Republicans  in  the  Senate  these 
measures  were  passed  with  more  speed  than  was  expected 
by  their  sponsors,  and  Mr.  Taft  promptly  vetoed  them 
on  the  ground  that  some  of  them  were  loosely  drawn 
and  all  of  them  were  based  upon  inadequate  information. 
The  following  year,  an  iron  and  steel  measure  and  a 
woolens  bill  were  again  presented  to  the  President  and 
as  decisively  vetoed.  In  his  veto  messages,  Mr.  Taft 
pointed  out  that  the  concise  information  collected  by  the 
tariff  board  was  now  at  the  disposal  of  Congress  and  that 
it  was  possible  to  undertake  a  revision  of  many  schedules 
which  would  allow  a  considerable  reduction  without 
"destroying  any  established  industry  or  throwing  any 
wage  earners  out  of  employment."  These  last  veto 
messages,  sent  in  August,  1912,  received  scant  considera 
tion  from  members  of  Congress  already  engaged  in  a  hot 
political  campaign. 

Mr.  Taft  was  equally  unfortunate  in  his  attempt  to 
secure  reciprocity  with  Canada.  In  January,  1911, 
through  the  Secretary  of  State,  he  concluded  a  reciprocity 


342     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

agreement  with  that  country  by  the  exchange  of  notes, 
providing  for  a  free  list  of  more  than  one  hundred  articles 
and  a  reduction  of  the  tariff  on  more  than  four  hundred 
articles.  The  agreement  was  submitted  to  the  legisla 
tures  of  the  two  countries.  A  bill  embodying  it  passed 
the  House,  in  February,  by  a  Democratic  vote,  the 
insurgent  Republicans  standing  almost  solidly  against  it, 
on  the  ground  that  it  discriminated  against  the  farmers 
by  introducing  Canadian  competition,  while  benefit 
ing  the  manufacturers  who  had  no  considerable  compe 
tition  from  that  source.  The  Senate  failed  to  act  on 
the  bill  until  the  next  session  of  the  new  Congress  when 
it  was  passed  in  July  with  twelve  insurgent  and  twelve 
regular  Republicans  against  it.  After  having  wrought 
this  serious  breach  in  his  own  party  in  Congress,  Mr.  Taf t 
was  sorely  disappointed  by  seeing  the  whole  matter  fall 
to  the  ground  through  the  overthrow  of  the  Liberals  in 
Canada  at  the  election  in  September,  1911,  and  the 
rejection  by  that  country  of  the  measure  for  which  he 
had  so  laboriously  contended. 

During  the  closing  days  of  his  administration,  Mr. 
Taft  was  seriously  beset  by  troubles  with  Mexico. 
Under  the  long  and  severe  rule  of  General  Porfirio 
Diaz  in  that  country,  order  had  been  set  up  there  (at 
whatever  cost  to  humanity)  and  American  capital  had 
streamed  into  Mexican  mines,  railways,  plantations, 
and  other  enterprises.  In  1911,  Diaz  was  overthrown 
by  Francisco  Madero  and  the  latter  was  hardly  installed 
in  power  before  he  was  assassinated  and  a  dictatorship 
set  up  under  General  Huerta,  in  February,  1913.  After 
the  overthrow  of  Diaz  in  1911,  Mexico  was  filled  with 


REPUBLICAN   DISINTEGRATION  343 

revolutionary  turmoil,  and  American  lives  and  property 
were  gravely  menaced.  In  April,  1912,  Mr.  Taft  sol 
emnly  warned  the  Mexican  government  that  the  United 
States  would  hold  it  responsible  for  the  destruction  of 
American  property  and  the  taking  of  American  life, 
but  this  warning  was  treated  with  scant  courtesy  by 
President  Madero.  The  disorders  continued  to  increase, 
and  demands  for  intervention  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States  were  heard  from  innumerable  interested  quarters, 
but  Mr.  Taft  refused  to  be  drawn  into  an  armed  conflict. 
The  Mexican  trouble  he  bequeathed  to  his  successor. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

THE  CAMPAIGN   OF    IQI2 

LONG  before  the  opening  of  the  campaign  of  1912,  the 
dissenters  in  the  Republican  party  who  had  added  the 
prefix  of  " Progressive"  to  the  old  title,  began  to  draw 
together  for  the  purpose  of  resisting  the  renomination 
of  Mr.  Taf t  and  putting  forward  a  candidate  more  nearly 
in  accord  with  their  principles.  As  early  as  January  21, 
1911,  a  National  Progressive  Republican  League  was 
formed  at  the  residence  of  Senator  La  Follette  in  Wash 
ington  and  a  program  set  forth  embracing  the  indorse 
ment  of  direct  primaries,  direct  elections,  and  direct 
government  generally  and  a  criticism  of  the  recent  fail 
ures  to  secure  .satisfactory  legislation  on  the  tariff, 
trusts,  banking,  and  conservation.  Only  on  the  changes 
in  our  machinery  of  government  did  the  League  take  a 
definite  stand ;  on  the  deeper  issues  of  political  economy 
it  was  silent,  at  least  as  to  positive  proposals.  Mr. 
Roosevelt  was  invited  to  join  the  new  organization,  but 
he  declined  to  identify  himself  with  it. 

For  a  time  the  Progressives  centered  their  attacks 
upon  Mr.  Taft's  administration.  Their  bill  of  indict 
ment  may  be  best  stated  in  the  language  of  Senator  La 
Follette:  "In  his  campaign  for  election,  he  [Mr.  Taft] 
had  interpreted  the  platform  as  a  pledge  for  tariff  revi- 

344 


THE   CAMPAIGN  OF   1912  345 

sion  downward.  Five  months  after  he  was  inaugurated 
he  signed  a  bill  that  revised  the  tariff  upward.  .  .  . 
The  President  started  on  a  tour  across  the  country  in 
September,  1909.  At  the  outset  in  an  address  at  Boston 
he  lauded  Aldrich  as  the  greatest  statesman  of  his  time. 
Then  followed  his  Winona  speech,  in  which  he  declared 
the  Payne- Aldrich  bill  to  be  the  best  tariff  ever  enacted, 
and  in  effect  challenged  the  Progressives  in  Congress 
who  had  voted  against  the  measure.  .  .  .  During  the 
succeeding  sessions  of  Congress,  President  Taft's  spon 
sorship  for  the  administration  railroad  bill,  with  its 
commerce  court,  its  repeal  of  the  anti-trust  act  in  its 
application  to  railroads,  its  legalizing  of  all  watered 
railroad  capitalization;  his  course  regarding  the  Bal- 
linger  and  Cunningham  claims,  and  the  subterfuges 
resorted  to  by  his  administration  in  defense  of  Ballinger ; 
his  attempt  to  foist  upon  the  country  a  sham  reciprocity 
measure ;  his  complete  surrender  to  the  legislative  reac 
tionary  program  of  Aldrich  and  Cannon  and  the  dis 
credited  representatives  of  special  interests  who  had  so 
long  managed  congressional  legislation,  rendered  it 
utterly  impossible  for  the  Progressive  Republicans  of 
the  country  to  support  him  for  reelection."  l 

A  second  positive  step  in  the  organization  of  the 
Progressive  Republicans  was  taken  in  April,  1911,  at  a 
conference  held  in  the  committee  room  of  Senator  Bourne, 
of  Oregon,  at  the  Capitol.  At  this  meeting  a  number  of 
Republican  Senators,  Representatives,  newspaper  men, 
and  private  citizens  were  present,  and  it  was  there 
agreed  that  the  Progressives  must  unite  upon  some  can- 

1  Autobiography,  p.  476. 


346     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

didate  in  opposition  to  Mr.  Taft.  The  most  available 
man  at  the  time  was  Senator  La  Follette,  who  had 
been  an  uncompromising  and  vigorous  exponent  of  pro 
gressive  doctrines  since  his  entrance  to  the  Senate  in 
1906 ;  and  the  members  of  this  conference,  or  at  least 
most  of  them,  assured  him  of  their  support  in  case  he 
would  consent  to  become  a  candidate  for  nomination. 
The  Senator  was  informed  by  men  very  close  to  Mr. 
Roosevelt  that  the  latter  would,  under  no  circumstances, 
enter  the  field ;  and  he  was  afforded  the  financial  assist 
ance  necessary  to  open  headquarters  for  the  purpose  of 
advancing  his  candidacy.  No  formal  announcement  of 
the  adherence  of  the  group  to  Mr.  La  Follette  was  then 
made,  for  the  reason  that  Senator  Cummins,  of  Iowa, 
and  some  other  prominent  Republicans  declined  to  sign 
the  call  to  arms.1 

In  July,  1911,  Senator  La  Follette  began  his  active 
campaign  for  nomination  as  an  avowed  Progressive 
Republican,  and  within  a  few  months  he  had  developed 
an  unexpected  strength,  particularly  in  the  Middle 
West,  which  indicated  the  depth  of  the  popular  dissatis 
faction  with  Mr.  Taft's  administration.  In  October  of 
that  year  a  national  conference  of  Progressive  Republi 
cans  assembled  at  Chicago,  on  the  call  of  Mr.  La  Fol 
lette 's  campaign  manager,  and  indorsed  the  Senator  in 
unmistakable  language,  declaring  him  to  be  "the  logical 
Republican  candidate  for  President  of  the  United 
States,"  and  urging  the  formation  of  organizations  in 
all  states  to  promote  his  nomination.  In  spite  of  these 
outward  signs  of  prosperity,  however,  Mr.  La  Follette 

1  La  Follette,  Autobiography,  pp.  516  ff. 


THE   CAMPAIGN  OF   1912  347 

was  by  no  means  sure  of  his  supporters,  for  several  of  the 
most  prominent,  including  Mr.  Gifford  Pinchot  and  Mr. 
James  R.  Garfield,  were  not  whole-hearted  in  their 
advocacy  of  his  cause  and  were  evidently  unwilling  to 
relinquish  the  hope  that  Mr.  Roosevelt  might  become 
their  leader  after  all. 

Indeed,  Senator  La  Follette  came  to  believe  that  many 
of  his  supporters,  who  afterward  went  over  to  Mr. 
Roosevelt,  never  intended  to  push  his  own  candidacy 
to  the  end,  but  employed  him  as  a  sort  of  "  stalking 
horse"  to  interest  and  measure  progressive  sentiment  for 
the  purpose  of  putting  the  ex-President  into  the  field 
at  the  opportune  moment,  if  the  signs  proved  auspicious. 
This  was  regarded  by  Mr.  La  Follette  not  merely  as 
treachery  to  himself,  but  also  as  treason  to  genuine  pro 
gressive  principles.  In  his  opinion,  Mr.  Roosevelt's 
long  administration  of  seven  years  had  failed  to  produce 
many  material  results.  He  admitted  that  the  ex- 
President  had  done  something  to  promote  conservation 
of  natural  resources,  but  called  attention  to  the  fact 
that  the  movement  for  conservation  had  been  begun 
even  as  early  as  Harrison 's  administration.1  He  pointed 
out  that  Mr.  Roosevelt  had  vigorously  indorsed  the 
Payne-Aldrich  tariff  in  the  New  York  state  campaign  of 
1910;  and  that  during  his  administration  the  formation 
and  overcapitalization  of  gigantic  combinations  had 
gone  forward  with  unprecedented  speed,  in  spite  of  the 
denunciation  of  "bad  trusts"  in  executive  messages. 
Furthermore,  the  Senator  directly  charged  Mr.  Roose 
velt  with  having  used  the  power  of  the  Federal  patron- 

1  Autobiography,  pp.  480  ff.,  543  f.,  551,  700,  740. 


348     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

age  against  him  in  his  fight  for  progressive  reforms  in 
Wisconsin. 

So  decided  was  Senator  La  Toilette's  distrust  of  Mr. 
Roosevelt's  new  "  progress!  vism,"  that  nothing  short 
of  a  lengthy  quotation  can  convey  the  spirit  of  it. 
"  While  Mr.  Roosevelt  was  President,"  says  the  Senator, 
"his. public  utterances  through  state  papers,  addresses, 
and  the  press  were  highly  colored  with  rhetorical  radi 
calism.  His  administrative  policies  as  set  forth  in  his 
recommendations  to  Congress  were  vigorously  and  pic 
turesquely  presented,  but  characterized  by  an  absence 
of  definite  economic  conception.  One  trait  was  always 
pronounced.  His  most  savage  assault  upon  special 
interests  was  invariably  offset  with  an  equally  drastic 
attack  upon  those  who  were  seeking  to  reform  abuses. 
These  were  indiscriminately  classed  as  demagogues  and 
dangerous  persons.  In  this  way  he  sought  to  win 
approval,  both  from  the  radicals  and  the  conservatives. 
This  cannonading,  first  in  one  direction  and  then  in 
another,  filled  the  air  with  noise  and  smoke,  which  con 
fused  and  obscured  the  line  of  action,  but  when  the 
battle  cloud  drifted  by  and  quiet  was  restored,  it  was 
always  a  matter  of  surprise  that  so  little  had  really 
been  accomplished.  .  .  .  He  smeared  the  issue,  but 
caught  the  imagination  of  the  younger  men  of  the  coun 
try  by  his  dash  and  mock  heroics.  Taft  cooperated 
with  Cannon  and  Aldrich  on  legislation.  Roosevelt 
cooperated  with  Aldrich  and  Cannon  on  legislation. 
Neither  President  took  issue  with  the  reactionary  bosses 
of  the  Senate  upon  any  legislation  of  national  impor 
tance.  Taft's  talk  was  generally  in  line  with  his  legis- 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF   1912  349 

lative  policy.  Roosevelt's  talk  was  generally  at  right 
angles  to  his  legislative  policy.  Taft's  messages  were 
the  more  directly  reactionary;  Roosevelt's  the  more 
'progressive.'  But  adhering  to  his  conception  of  a 
'square  deal,'  his  strongest  declarations  in  the  public 
interest  were  invariably  offset  with  something  comfort 
ing  for  Privilege ;  every  phrase  denouncing  '  bad '  trusts 
was  deftly  balanced  with  praise  for  'good'  trusts." 
It  is  obvious  that  a  man  so  deeply  convinced  of  Mr. 
Roosevelt's  insincerity  of  purposes  and  instability  of 
conviction  could  not  think  of  withdrawing  in  his  favor 
or  of  lending  any  countenance  to  his  candidacy  for 
nomination.  To  Senator  La  Follette  the  "directly 
reactionary"  policy  of  Mr.  Taf t  was  far  preferable  to 
the  "mock  heroics"  of  Mr.  Roosevelt. 

Nevertheless,  at  the  opening  of  the  presidential  year, 
1912,  all  speculations  turned  upon  the  movements  of  Mr. 
Roosevelt.  His  long  trip  to  Africa  and  Europe  and  his 
brief  abstention  from  politics  on  his  return  in  June, 
1910,  led  many,  who  did  not  know  him,  to  suppose  that 
he  might  emulate  the  example  set  by  Mr.  Cleveland  in 
retiring  from  active  affairs.  If  he  entertained  any  such 
notions,  it  was  obvious  that  the  exigencies  of  affairs  in 
his  party  were  different  from  those  in  the  Democratic 
party  after  1897.  Indeed,  during  the  very  summer  after 
his  return,  the  cleavage  between  the  reformist  Hughes 
wing  of  the  Republicans  in  New  York  and  the  "regular" 
group  headed  by  Mr.  William  Barnes  had  developed 
into  an  open  breach ;  and  at  the  earnest  entreaty  of  the 
representatives  of  the  former  faction,  Mr.  Roosevelt 
plunged  into  the  state  contest,  defeated  Vice  President 


350     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

Sherman  in  a  hot  fight  for  chairmanship  of  the  staj£ 
convention,  and  secured  the  nomination  of  Mr.  H. 


Stimson  as  the  Republican  candidate  for  govern 
The  platform  which  was  adopted  by  the  convention  was 
colorless  enough  for  the  most  conservative  party  member 
and  gave  no  indication  of  the  radical  drift  manifested 
two  years  later  at  Chicago.  The  defeat  of  Mr.  Stimson 
gave  no  little  satisfaction  to  the  ex-President's  oppo 
nents,  particularly  to  those  who  hoped  that  he  had  at 
last  been  " eliminated." 

They  had  not,  however,  counted  on  their  man.  Dur 
ing  the  New  York  gubernatorial  campaign,  he  made  a 
tour  of  the  West,  and  in  a  series  of  remarkable  speeches, 
he  stirred  that  region  by  the  enunciation  of  radical  doc 
trines  which  were  listened  to  gladly  by  the  multitude. 
In  an  address  at  Ossawatomie,  Kansas,  on  August  31, 
1910,*  he  expounded  his  principles  under  the  title  of 
"the  New  Nationalism."  He  there  advocated  Federal 
regulation  of  trusts,  a  graduated  income  tax,  tariff 
revision  schedule  by  schedule,  conservation,  labor  legis 
lation,  the  direct  primary,  recall  of  elective  officers,  and 
the  adjustment  of  state  and  Federal  relations  in  such  a 
form  that  there  might  be  no  neutral  ground  to  serve  as 
the  refuge  for  lawbreakers.1  In  editorials  in  the 
Outlook,  of  which  he  was  the  contributing  editor,  and 
in  his  speeches,  Mr.  Roosevelt  continued  to  discuss  Mr. 
Taft's  policies  and  the  current  issues  of  popular  govern 
ment.  At  length,  in  February,  1912,  in  an  address  before 
the  constitutional  convention  of  Ohio,  he  came  out  for  a 
complete  program  of  " direct"  government,  the  initia- 

1  See  above,  p.  314. 


THE   CAMPAIGN   OF   1912  351 

tive,  referendum,  and  recall;  but  with  such  careful 
qualifications  that  the  more  radical  progressives  were 
still  unconvinced.1 

Notwithstanding,  his  extensive  discussion  of  current 
issues  and  his  great  popularity  with  a  large  section  of 
the  Progressive  group,  Mr.  Roosevelt  steadily  put  away 
all  suggestions  that  he  should  become  a  candidate  in  1912. 
In  a  letter  to  the  Pittsburgh  Leader,  of  August  22,  1911, 
he  said:  "I  must  ask  not  only  you,  but  every  friend  I 
have,  to  see  to  it  that  no  movement  whatever  is  made 
to  bring  me  forward  for  nomination  in  1912.  ...  I 
should  esteem  it  a  genuine  calamity  if  such  a  move 
ment  were  undertaken."  Nevertheless,  all  along,  men 
who  were  very  close  to  him  believed  that  he  would 
not  refuse  the  nomination  if  it  were  offered  to  him 
under  proper  circumstances.  As  time  went  on  his 
utterances  became  more  pronounced,  particularly  in  his 
western  speeches,  and  friendly  as  well  as  unfriendly 
newspapers  insisted  on  viewing  his  conduct  as  a  dis 
tinct  appeal  for  popular  support  for  the  Republican 
nomination. 

The  climax  came  in  February,  1912,  when  seven 
Republican  Governors,  Glasscock,  of  West  Virginia, 
Aldrich,  of  Nebraska,  Bass,  of  New  Hampshire,  Carey, 
of  Wyoming,  Stubbs,  of  Kansas,  Osborn,  of  Michigan,  and 
Hadley,  of  Missouri,  issued  a  statement  that  the  re 
quirements  of  good  government  demanded  his  candi 
dature,  that  the  great  majority  of  Republican  voters 
desired  it,  that  he  stood  for  the  principles  and  policies 
most  conducive  to  public  happiness  and  prosperity,  and 

1  La  Follette,  Autobiography,  p.  616. 


352     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

finally  that  it  was  his  plain  duty  to  accept  regardless  of 
his  personal  interests  or  preferences.  To  this  open 
challenge,  he  replied  on  February  24  by  saying  that  he 
would  accept  the  nomination  if  tendered  and  abide  by 
this  decision  until  the  convention  had  expressed  its 
preference.  The  only  political  doctrine  which  he 
enunciated  was  belief  "in  the  rule  of  the  people,'7  and 
on  this  principle  he  expressed  a  desire  for  direct  primaries 
to  ascertain  the  will  of  the  party  members. 

The  Nomination  of  Candidates  in  1912 

A  new  and  unexpected  turn  was  given  to  the  campaign 
for  nomination  by  the  adoption  of  the  preferential  pri 
mary  in  a  number  of  states,  East  as  well  as  West.  As 
we  have  seen,  the  direct  primary1  was  brought  into 
action  by  men  who  found  themselves  outside  of  the  old 
party  intrenchments.  La  Follette,  in  Wisconsin,  Stubbs, 
in  Kansas,  Hughes,  in  New  York,  and  the  other  advo 
cates  of  the  system,  having  failed  to  capture  the  old 
strongholds,  determined  to  blow  them*  up ;  the  time 
had  now  come  for  an  attack  on  the  national  convention. 
President  Taft  and  the  regular  Republican  organization 
were  in  possession  of  the  enormous  Federal  patronage, 
and  they  knew  how  to  use  it  just  as  well  as  had  Mr. 
Roosevelt  in  1908  when  he  forced  the  nomination  of 
Mr.  Taft.  True  to  their  ancient  traditions,  the  Repub 
lican  provinces  in  the  South  began,  early  in  1912,  to 
return  "representatives"  instructed  to  vote  for  a 
second  term  for  President  Taft.  But  the  Progressives 
were  forearmed  as  well  as  forewarned. 
1  Above,  p.  288. 


THE   CAMPAIGN  OF   1912  353 

As  early  as  February  27,  1912,  Senator  Bourne  had 
warned  the  country  that  the  overthrow  of  "the  good 
old  ways"  of  nominating  presidential  candidates  was  at 
hand.  In  a  speech  on  that  date,  he  roundly  denounced 
the  convention  and  described  the  new  Oregon  system. 
He  declared  that  nominations  in  national  conventions 
were  made  by  the  politicians,  and  that  the  "  electorate 
of  the  whole  United  States  is  permitted  only  to  witness 
in  gaping  expectancy,  and  to  ratify  at  the  polls  in  the 
succeeding  November."  The  flagrancy  of  this  abuse, 
however,  paled  into  insignificance,  added  Mr.  Bourne, 
"in  the  presence  of  that  other  abuse  against  partisan 
conscience  and  outrage  upon  the  representative  system 
which  is  wrought  by  the  Republican  politician  in  hope 
lessly  Democratic  states  and  by  the  Democratic  politician 
in  hopelessly  Republican  states  in  dominating  the  na 
tional  conventions  with  the  presence  of  these  unrepre 
sentative  delegations  that  represent  neither  party, 
people,  nor  principle." 

The  speaker  then  elaborated  these  generalities  by 
reference  to  details.  He  pointed  out  that  the  southern 
states  and  territories  which  (except  Maryland)  gave  no 
electoral  votes  to  Mr.  Taft  had  338  delegates  in  the 
convention,  only  153  less  than  a  majority  of  the  entire 
party  assembly,  four  more  than  the  combined  votes  of 
New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Illinois,  Ohio,  Massachusetts, 
Indiana,  and  Iowa  with  334  delegates.  Moreover, 
equal  representation  of  states  and  territories  on  the 
national  committee  and  on  the  committee  on  credentials 
-  the  two  bodies  which,  in  the  first  instance,  pass  upon 
the  rights  of  delegates  to  their  seats — gave  undue  weight 

2  A 


354     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

to  the  very  states  where  wrongs  were  most  likely  to  be 
committed.  As  to  the  power  of  the  Republican  President 
of  the  United  States  to  control  these  delegates  from  the 
South,  the  Senator  was  in  no  doubt. 

To  the  anomalous  southern  delegates  were  added 
the  delegates  selected  in  northern  states  by  the  power 
of  patronage.  Mr.  Bourne  was  specific:  "Three  years 
ago/'  he  said,  "we  had  a  convincing  exhibition  of  the 
power  of  a  President  to  dictate  the  selection  of  his 
successor.  At  that  time,  three  fourths  of  the  Republi 
can  voters  of  my  state  were  in  favor  of  the  renomina- 
tion  of  Mr.  Roosevelt,  and  believing  that  their  wishes 
should  be  observed,  I  endeavored  to  secure  a  delegation 
from  that  state  favorable  to  his  nomination  for  a  second 
elective  term.  But  through  the  tremendous  power  of 
the  Chief  Executive  and  of  the  Federal  machine  the 
delegates  selected  by  our  state  convention  were  instructed 
for  Mr.  Taft.  After  all  the  delegates  were  elected  and 
instructed,  a  poll  was  taken  by  one  of  the  leading  news 
papers  in  Portland,  which  city  contains  nearly  one  third 
of  the  entire  population  of  the  state.  The  result  indi 
cated  that  the  preference  of  the  people  of  the  state  was 
ii  to  i  in  favor  of  Mr.  Roosevelt  as  against  Mr.  Taft." 
It  was  this  personal  experience  with  the  power  of  Federal 
patronage  that  induced  Mr.  Bourne  to  draft  the  Oregon 
presidential  primary  law  which  was  enacted  by  the  use 
of  the  initiative  and  referendum  in  1910. 
The  provisions  of  the  Oregon  law  follow : 
(i)  At  the  regular  primary  held  on  the  forty-fifth 
day  before  the  first  Monday  in  June  of  the  presidential 
year,  each  voter  is  given  an  opportunity  to  express  his 


THE   CAMPAIGN  OF   1912  355 

preference  for  one  candidate  for  the  office  of  President 
and  one  for  that  of  Vice  President,  either  by  writing  the 
names  or  by  making  crosses  before  the  printed  names  on 
the  ballot. 

(2)  The  names  of  candidates  for  the  two  offices  are 
placed  on  the  ballot  without  their  consent,  if  necessary, 
by  petitions  filed  by  their  supporters,  just  as  in  the 
case   of   candidates  for   governor    and    United   States 
Senator. 

(3)  The  committee  or  organization  which    places  a 
presidential  aspirant  on  the  primary  ballot  is  provided, 
on  payment  therefor,  four  pages  in  the  campaign  book 
issued  by  the  state,  and  electors  who  oppose  or  approve 
of  any  such  aspirant  for  nomination  are  likewise  given 
space  in  the  campaign  book. 

(4)  Delegates  to  national  conventions  and  presiden 
tial  electors  must  be  nominated  at  large  at  the  pri 
mary. 

(5)  Every  delegate  is  paid  his  expenses  to  the  na 
tional   convention ;    in   no   case,   however,   more   than 
$200. 

(6)  Every  delegate  must  take  an  oath  to  the  effect 
that  he  will  "to  the  best  of  his  judgment  and  ability 
faithfully  carry  out  the  wishes  of  his  political  party  as 
expressed  by  its  voters  at  the  time  of  his  election." 

The  initial  move  of  Oregon  to  secure  a  preferential 
vote  on  candidates  and  the  instruction  of  delegates  was 
followed  in  1911  by  New  Jersey,  Nebraska,  California, 
North  Dakota,  and  Wisconsin,  and  in  1912  by  Mas 
sachusetts,  Illinois,  and  Maryland. 

The  other  presidential  primary  laws  show  some  varia- 


356     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

tions  on  the  Oregon  plan  although  they  agree  in  afford 
ing  the  voter  an  opportunity  to  express  his  preference. 
Nebraska,  for  example,  refused  to  disregard  the  Repub 
lican  system  of  district  representation,  and  provided  that 
"four  delegates  shall  be  elected  by  the  voters  of  the 
state  at  large ;  the  remainder  of  the  delegates  shall  be 
equally  divided  between  the  various  congressional  dis 
tricts  in  the  state  and  district  delegates  shall  be  elected 
by  the  voters  of  the  various  congressional  districts  in  the 
state."  Massachusetts  follows  Nebraska  in  this  rule, 
but  California  prefers  the  Oregon  plan  of  election  at 
large.  It  was  this  provision  in  the  law  of  California  that 
caused  the  controversy  over  the  seating  of  two  district 
delegates  at  Chicago  in  June,  1912.  Although  Mr. 
Roosevelt  carried  the  state,  one  of  the  districts  went 
for  Mr.  Taft,  and  the  convention  seated  the  delegates 
from  this  district,  on  the  ground  that  the  rules  of  the 
party  override  a  state  statute. 

The  Illinois  law  does  not  attempt  to  bind  the  delegates 
to  a  strict  observance  of  the  results  of  the  primary.  On 
the  contrary  it  expressly  states  "that  the  vote  for  Presi 
dent  of  the  United  States  as  herein  provided  for  shall 
be  for  the  sole  purpose  of  securing  an  expression  of  the 
sentiment  and  will  of  the  party  voters  with  respect  to 
the  candidate  for  nomination  for  said  office,  and  the 
vote  of  the  state  at  large  shall  be  taken  and  considered 
as  advisory  to  the  delegates  and  alternates  at  large  to 
the  national  conventions  of  the  respective  political 
parties;  and  the  vote  of  the  respective  congressional 
districts  shall  be  taken  and  considered,  as  advisory  to 
the  delegates  and  alternates  of  the  said  congressional 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF   1912  357 

districts  to  the  national  convention  of  the  respective 
political  parties." 

The  existence  of  these  laws  in  several  strategic  states 
made  it  necessary  for  the  Republican  and  Democratic 
candidates  to  go  directly  before  the  voters  to  discuss 
party  issues.  The  country  witnessed  the  unhappy 
spectacle  of  two  former  friends,  Mr.  Taft  and  Mr.  Roose 
velt,  waging  bitter  war  upon  each  other  on  the  hustings. 
The  former  denounced  the  Progressives  as  "  political 
emotionalists  or  neurotics."  The  latter  referred  to  his 
candidacy  in  the  words,  "My  hat  is  in  the  ring";  and 
during  his  campaign  fiercely  turned  upon  Mr.  Taft.  He 
gave  to  the  public  a  private  letter  in  which  Mr.  Taft 
acknowledged  that  Mr.  Roosevelt  had  voluntarily  trans 
ferred  to  him  the  presidential  office,  and  added  the  com 
ment,  "It  is  a  bad  trait  to  bite  the  hand  that  feeds  you." 

Mr.  Roosevelt's  candidature  $vas  lavishly  supported 
by  Mr.  G.  W.  Perkins,  of  the  Steel  and  Harvester  Trusts, 
and  by  other  gentlemen  of  great  wealth  who  had  formerly 
indorsed  Mr.  Hanna's  methods;  and  all  of  the  old 
engines  of  politics  were  brought  into  play.  While 
making  the  popular  appeal  in  the  North,  Mr.  Roosevelt's 
managers  succeeded  in  securing  a  large  quota  of  "rep 
resentatives"  from  the  southern  Republican  provinces 
to  contest  those  already  secured  by  Mr.  Taft.  As  the 
matter  was  put  by  the  Washington  Times,  a  paper  owned 
by  Mr.  Munsey,  one  of  Mr.  Roosevelt's  ardent  sup 
porters  :  "For  psychological  effect,  as  a  move  in  practical 
politics,  it  was  necessary  for  the  Roosevelt  people  to 
start  contests  on  these  early  Taft  selections,  in  order 


358     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

that  a  tabulation  of  strength  could  be  put  out  that  would 
show  Roosevelt  holding  a  good  hand  in  the  game.  A 
table  showing  'Taft,  150,  Roosevelt,  19;  contested 
none/  would  not  be  likely  to  inspire  confidence. 
Whereas  one  showing  'Taft,  23,  Roosevelt,  19;  con 
tested,  127,'  looked  very  different." 

The  results  of  the  Republican  presidential  primaries 
were  astounding.  Mr.  Roosevelt  carried  Illinois  by  a 
majority  of  100,000 ;  he  obtained  67  of  the  76  delegates 
from  Pennsylvania ;  the  state  convention  in  Michigan 
broke  up  in  a  riot;  he  carried  California  by  a  vote  of 
two  to  one  as  against  Mr.  Taft ;  he  swept  New  Jersey 
and  South  Dakota ;  and  he  secured  the  eight  delegates 
at  large  in  Massachusetts,  although  Mr.  Taft  carried 
the  preferential  vote  by  a  small  majority.  Connecticut 
and  New  York  were  strongly  for  Mr.  Taft,  and  Mr. 
La  Follette  carried  \\feconsin  and  North  Dakota.  Mr. 
Taft's  supporters  calleckattention  to  the  fact  that  a  very 
large  number  of  Republicans  had  failed  to  vote  at  all  in 
the  preferential  primaries,  but  they  were  speedily  in 
formed  by  the  opposition  that  they  would  see  the 
shallowness  qff  this  contention  if  they  inquired  into 
the  number  who  voted  for  delegates  to  the  conventions 
which  indorsed  Mr.  Taft. 

When  the  Republican  convention  assembled  in 
Chicago,  252  of  the  1078  seats  were  contested ;  238  of 
these  were  held  by  Mr.  Taft's  delegates  and  14  by  Mr. 
Roosevelt's  supporters.  The  national  committee,  after 
the  usual  hearings,  decided  the  contests  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  give  Mr.  Taft  a  safe  majority.  No  little  ingenuity 
was  expended  on  both  sides  to  show  the  legality  or  the 


THE   CAMPAIGN  OF   1912  359 

illegality  of  the  several  decisions.  Mr.  Taft's  friends 
pointed  out  that  they  had  been  made  in  a  constitutional 
manner  by  the  proper  authority,  the  national  committee 
"chosen  in  1908  when  Roosevelt  was  the  leader  of  the 
party,  at  a  time  when  his  influence  dominated  the  con 
vention."  Mr.  Roosevelt's  champions  replied  by  cries 
of  " fraud."  Independent  newspapers  remarked  that 
there  was  no  more  "regularity"  about  one  set  of  south 
ern  delegates  than  another ;  that  the  national  committee 
had  followed  the  example  set  by  Mr.  Roosevelt  when  he 
forced  Mr.  Taft's  nomination  in  1908  by  using  southern 
delegations  against  the  real  Republican  states  which  had 
instructed  for  other  candidates ;  and  that  what  was 
sauce  for  the  goose  was  sauce  for  the  gander.  What 
ever  may  be  the  merits  of  the  technical  claims  made  on 
both  sides,  it  seems  fair  to  say  that  Mr.  Roosevelt, 
according  to  all  available  signs,  particularly  the  vote  in 
the  primaries  in  the  strategic  states,  was  the  real  choice 
of  the  Republican  party. 

The  struggle  over  the  contested  seats  was  carried  into 
the  convention,  and  after  a  hot  fight,  Mr.  Taft's  forces 
were  victorious.  When  at  length,  as  Mr.  Bryan  put  it, 
"the  credentials  committee  made  its  last  report  and  the 
committee-made  majority  had  voted  itself  the  conven 
tion,"  Mr.  Roosevelt's  supporters  on  Saturday,  June  22, 
after  a  week's  desperate  maneuvering,  broke  with  the 
Republican  assembly.  A  statement  prepared  by  Mr. 
Roosevelt  was  read  as  a  parting  shot.  "The  conven 
tion,"  he  said,  "has  now  declined  to  purge  the  roll  of  the 
fraudulent  delegates  placed  thereon  by  the  defunct 
national  committee,  and  the  majority  which  has  thus 


360     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

indorsed  the  fraud  was  made  a  majority  only  because 
it  included  the  fraudulent  delegates  themselves  who  all 
sat  as  judges  on  one  another's  cases.  .  .  .  The  con 
vention  as  now  composed  has  no  claim  to  represent  the 
voters  of  the  Republican  party.  .  .  .  Any  man  nomi 
nated  by  the  convention  as  now  constituted  would  merely 
be  the  beneficiary  of  this  successful  fraud ;  it  would  be 
deeply  discreditable  to  any  man  to  accept  the  conven 
tion's  nomination  under  these  circumstances;  and  any 
man  thus  accepting  it  would  have  no  claim  to  the  sup 
port  of  any  Republican  on  party  grounds  and  would 
have  forfeited  the  right  to  ask  the  support  of  any  honest 
man  of  any  party  on  moral  grounds." 

Mr.  Roosevelt's  severe  arraignment  of  men  who  had 
been  his  bosom  friends  and  chief  political  advisers  and 
supporters  filled  with  astonishment  many  thoughtful 
observers  in  all  parties  who  found  it  difficult  to  account 
for  his  conduct.  In  Mr.  Roosevelt's  bitter  speech  at 
the  Auditorium  mass  meeting  on  the  evening  of  June  17, 
1912,  a  sharp  line  was  drawn  between  the  " treason" 
of  the  Republican  "Old  Guard"  and  the  "purity" 
of  his  supporters.  Of  this,  Mr.  Bryan  said,  with  much 
irony:  "He  carried  me  back  to  the  day  when  I  first 
learned  of  this  world-wide,  never-ending  contest  between 
the  beneficiaries  of  privilege  and  the  unorganized  masses ; 
and  I  can  appreciate  the  amazement  which  he  must  feel 
that  so  many  honest  and  well-meaning  people  seem  blind 
or  indifferent  to  what  is  going  on.  I  passed  through  the 
same  period  of  amazement  when  I  first  began  to  run  for 
President.  My  only  regret  is  that  we  have  not  had  the 
benefit  of  his  powerful  assistance  during  the  campaigns 


THE   CAMPAIGN  OF   1912  361 

in  which  we  have  protested  against  the  domination  of 
politics  by  predatory  corporations.  He  probably  feels 
more  strongly  stirred  to  action  to-day  because  he  was  so 
long  unconscious  of  the  forces  at  work  thwarting  the 
popular  will.  The  fact,  too,  that  he  has  won  prestige 
and  position  for  himself  and  friends  through  the  support 
of  the  very  influences  which  he  now  so  righteously  de 
nounces  must  still  further  increase  the  sense  of  respon 
sibility  which  he  feels  at  this  time.  .  .  .  He  ought  to 
find  encouragement  in  my  experience.  I  have  seen 
several  campaigns  end  in  a  most  provoking  way,  and 
yet  I  have  lived  to  see  a  Republican  ex-President  cheered 
by  a  Republican  audience  for  denouncing  men  who, 
only  a  few  years  ago,  were  thought  to  be  the  custodians 
of  the  nation's  honor."  1 

When  Mr.  Roosevelt  definitely  broke  with  the  Repub 
lican  convention,  most  of  his  followers  left  that  assembly, 
and  the  few  that  stayed  behind  there  refused  to  vote  on 
roll  call.  The  substantial  "rump"  which  remained 
proceeded  with  the  business  as  if  nothing  had  happened, 
and  renominated  Mr.  Taft  and  Mr.  Sherman  as  the 
candidates  of  the  Republican  party.  The  regulars 
retained  the  battle  field,  but  they  could  not  fail  to  recog 
nize  how  forlorn  was  the  hope  that  led  them  on. 

On  examining  the  vote  on  Mr.  Root  and  Mr.  McGov- 
ern,  as  candidates  for  temporary  chairman,  it  becomes 
apparent  that  the  real  strength  of  the  party  was  with 
Mr.  Roosevelt.  The  former  candidate,  representing  the 
conservative  wing,  received  the  overwhelming  majority  of 
the  votes  of  the  southern  states,  like  Alabama,  Georgia, 

1 A  Tale  of  Two  Conventions,  p.  27. 


362     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

Louisiana,  Mississippi,  and  Virginia,  where  the  Republican 
organization  was  a  political  sham ;  he  did  not  carry  the 
majority  of  the  delegates  of  a  single  one  of  the  strategic 
Republican  states  of  the  North  except  Indiana,  Iowa, 
Michigan,  and  New  York.  Massachusetts  and  Wiscon 
sin  were  evenly  divided ;  but  the  other  great  Republi 
can  states  were  against  him.  Minnesota,  Nebraska, 
New  Jersey,  North  and  South  Dakota  were  solid  for 
McGovern.  Ohio  gave  thirty-four  of  her  thirty-eight 
votes  for  him ;  Illinois,  forty-nine  out  of  fifty-eight ; 
California,  twenty-four  out  of  twenty-six ;  Kansas,  eigh 
teen  out  of  twenty ;  Oregon,  six  out  of  nine ;  Pennsyl 
vania,  sixty-four  out  of  seventy-six.  In  nearly  every  state 
where  there  had  been  a  preferential  primary  Mr.  Roose 
velt  had  carried  the  day.  Mr.  Root  won  by  a  vote  of 
558  to  501  for  Mr.  McGovern.  It  was  a  victory,  but  it 
bore  the  sting  of  death.  When  he  stepped  forward  to 
deliver  his  address,  the  applause  that  greeted  him  was 
broken  by  cries  of  "  Receiver  of  stolen  goods." 

If  the  supporters  of  Mr.  Taft  in  the  convention  had 
any  doubts  as  to  the  character  of  the  methods  employed 
to  secure  his  nomination  or  the  conduct  of  the  convention 
itself,  they  were  more  than  repaid  for  their  labors  by 
what  they  believed  to  be  the  salvation  of  the  party  in  the 
hour  of  a  great  crisis.  To  them,  the  attacks  on  the 
judiciary,  representative  institutions,  and  the  established 
order  generally  were  so  serious  and  so  menacing  that  if 
high-handed  measures  were  ever  justified  they  were  on 
that  occasion.  The  instruments  which  they  employed 
were  precisely  those  which  had  been  developed  in  party 
usage  and  had  been  wielded  with  kindred  results  in  1908 


THE   CAMPAIGN  OF   1912  363 

by  the  eminent  gentleman  who  created  so  much  disturb 
ance  when  he  fell  a  victim  to  them.  Mr.  Taft's  sup 
porters  must  have  foreseen  defeat  from  the  hour  when  the 
break  came,  but  they  preferred  defeat  in  November  to 
the  surrender  of  all  that  the  party  had  stood  for  since  the 
Civil  War. 

The  Republican  platform  was  not  prolix  or  very 
specific,  but  on  general  principles  it  took  a  positive  stand. 
It  adhered  to  the  traditional  American  doctrine  of  in 
dividual  liberty,  protected  by  constitutional  safeguards 
and  enforced  by  the  courts ;  and  it  declared  the  recall  of 
judges  to  be  "  unnecessary  and  unwise."  It  announced 
the  purpose  of  the  party  to  go  forward  with  a  program  of 
social  legislation,  but  it  did  not  go  into  great  detail  on 
this  point.  President  Taft's  policy  of  submitting 
justiciable  controversies  between  nations  to  arbitration 
was  indorsed.  The  amendment  of  the  Sherman  law  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  make  the  illegal  practices  of  trusts 
and  corporations  more  specific  was  favored,  and  the 
creation  of  a  Federal  trade  commission  to  deal  with  inter 
state  business  affected  with  public  use  was  recommended. 
The  historic  views  of  the  party  on  the  tariff  were  restated 
and  sound  currency  and  banking  legislation  promised. 
The  insinuation  that  the  party  was  reactionary  was  re 
pudiated  by  a  declaration  that  it  had  always  been  a 
genuinely  progressive  party,  never  stationary  or  reac 
tionary,  but  always  going  from  the  fulfillment  of  one 
pledge  to  another  in  response  to  public  need  and  popular 
will. 

In  his  acceptance  speech,  Mr.  Taft  took  issue  with  all 
the  radical  tendencies  of  the  time  and  expressed  his  pro- 


364     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

found  gratitude  for  the  righteous  victory  at  Chicago, 
where  they  had  been  saved  from  the  man  "  whose  re 
cently  avowed  political  views  would  have  committed  the 
party  to  radical  proposals  involving  dangerous  changes  in 
our  present  constitutional  form  of  representative  govern 
ment  and  our  independent  judiciary."  The  widespread 
popular  unrest  which  forced  itself  upon  the  attention  of 
even  the  most  indifferent  spectators,  Mr.  Taft  attributed 
to  the  sensational  journals,  muckraking,  and  demagogues, 
and  he  declared  that  the  equality  of  opportunity 
preached  by  the  apostles  of  social  justice  "  involves 
a  forced  division  of  property  and  that  means  social 
ism."  In  fact,  in  his  opinion,  the  real  contest  was 
at  bottom  one  over  private  property,  and  the  Demo 
cratic  and  Progressive  parties  were  merely  aiding 
the  Socialists  in  their  attack  upon  this  institution. 
He  challenged  his  opponents  to  show  how  the 
initiative,  referendum,  and  recall  would  effect  sig 
nificant  economic  changes:  " Votes  are  not  bread,  con 
stitutional  amendments  are  not  work,  referendums  do 
not  pay  rent  or  furnish  houses,  recalls  do  not  furnish 
clothes,  initiatives  do  not  supply  employment,  or  relieve 
inequalities  of  condition  or  of  opportunity."  In  other 
words  he  took  a  firm  stand  against  the  whole  range  of 
" radical  propositions"  advanced  by  " demagogues  "  to 
"satisfy  what  is  supposed  to  be  popular  clamor." 

The  Democrats  looked  upon  the  Republican  dissen 
sions  with  evident  satisfaction.  When  the  time  for 
sifting  candidates  for  1912  arrived,  there  was  unwonted 
bustle  in  their  ranks,  for  they  now  saw  a  greater  proba- 


THE   CAMPAIGN  OF   1912  365 

bility  of  victory  than  at  any  time  in  the  preceding  sixteen 
years.  The  congressional  elections  of  1910,  the  division 
in  the  Republican  party,  and  discontent  with  the  pre 
vailing  order  of  things  manifest  throughout  the  country, 
all  pointed  to  a  possibility  of  a  chance  to  return  to  the 
promised  land  from  which  they  had  been  driven  in  1897. 
And  there  was  no  lack  of  strong  presidential  "  timber. " 
Two  of  the  recently  elected  Democratic  governors, 
Harmon,  of  Ohio,  and  Wilson,  of  New  Jersey,  were  assid 
uously  "boomed"  by  their  respective  contingents  of  sup 
porters.  Mr.  Bryan,  though  not  an  avowed  candidate, 
was  still  available  and  strong  in  his  western  battalions. 
Mr.  Champ  Clark,  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Represent 
atives,  and  Mr.  Oscar  Underwood,  chairman  of  the  ways 
and  means  committee,  likewise  loomed  large  on  the 
horizon  as  possibilities. 

In  the  primaries  at  which  delegates  to  the  convention 
were  chosen  a  great  division  of  opinion  was  manifested, 
although  there  was  a  considerable  drift  toward  Mr. 
Clark.  No  one  had  anything  like  a  majority  of  the 
delegates,  but  the  Speaker's  popular  vote  in  such  sig 
nificant  states  as  Illinois  showed  him  to  be  a  formidable 
contestant.  But  Mr.  Clark  soon  alienated  Mr.  Bryan 
by  refusing  to  join  him  in  a  movement  to  prevent 
the  nomination  of  a  conservative  Democrat,  Mr.  Alton 
B.  Parker,  as  temporary  chairman  of  the  convention 
which  met  at  Baltimore  on  June  25.  Although  at  one 
time  Mr.  Clark  received  more  than  one  half  of  the  votes 
(two  thirds  being  necessary  to  nominate)  his  doom  was 
sealed  by  Mr.  Bryan's  potent  opposition. 

Mr.  Wilson,  on  the  other  hand,  gained  immensely  by 


366     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

this  predicament  in  which  the  Speaker  found  himself. 
He  was  easily  the  second  candidate  in  the  race,  as  the 
balloting  showed,  and  his  availability  was  in  many  re 
spects  superb.  He  was  new  to  politics,  and  thus  had 
few  enemies.  He  had  long  been  known  as  a  stanch  con 
servative  of  the  old  school ;  and  although  he  apparently 
had  not  broken  with  his  party  in  the  stormy  days  of 
1896,  it  was  publicly  known  that  he  had  wished  Mr. 
Bryan  to  be  "  knocked  into  a  cocked  hat."  In  his  printed 
utterances  he  was  on  record  against  the  newer  devices, 
such  as  the  initiative  and  referendum,  and  he  therefore 
commanded  the  respect  and  confidence  of  eastern  Demo 
crats.  As  governor  of  New  Jersey,  however,  his  policies 
had  appealed  to  the  progressive  sections  of  his  party, 
without  seriously  alienating  the  other  wing.  He  had 
pushed  through  an  elaborate  system  of  direct  primary 
legislation,  a  public  utilities  bill  after  the  fashion  of  the 
Wisconsin  system,  and  a  workmen's  compensation  law. 
On  a  western  tour  he  met  Mr.  Bryan  on  such  happy  terms 
that  their  cordiality  seemed  to  be  more  than  ostensible, 
and  at  about  the  same  time  he  declared  himself  in  favor 
of  the  initiative  and  referendum.  His  friends  held  that 
the  conservative  scholar  had  been  made  "  progressive " 
by  practical  experience ;  his  enemies  contended  that  he 
was  playing  the  political  game ;  and  his  managers  were 
able  to  make  use  of  one  record  effectively  in  the  West 
and  another  effectively  in  the  East.  Having  the  con 
fidence,  if  not  the  cordial  support,  of  the  conservatives 
and  the  great  weight  of  Mr.  Bryan's  influence  on  his 
side,  he  was  able  to  win  the  nomination  on  the  forty- 
sixth  ballot  taken  on  the  seventh  day  of  the  convention. 


THE   CAMPAIGN  OF   1912  367 

The  Democratic  platform  adopted  at  Baltimore 
naturally  opened  with  a  consideration  of  the  tariff  ques 
tion,  reiterating  the  ancient  principle  that  the  govern 
ment  "  under  the  Constitution  has  no  right  or  power  to 
impose  or  collect  tariff  duties  except  for  the  purpose  of 
revenue.'7  President  Taft's  action  in  vetoing  the  tariff 
bills  was  denounced,  and  an  immediate,  downward  re 
vision  was  demanded.  Recognizing  the  intimate  con 
nection  between  the  tariff  and  business,  the  Democrats 
proposed  to  reach  their  ultimate  ideal  by  "  legislation 
that  will  not  injure  or  destroy  legitimate  industry." 
On  the  trust  question,  the  platform  took  a  positive  stand, 
demanding  the  enforcement  of  the  criminal  provisions  of 
the  law  against  trust  officials  and  the  enactment  of  ad 
ditional  legislation  to  make  it  "  impossible  for  a  private 
monopoly  to  exist  in  the  United  States."  The  action  of 
the  Republican  administration  in  "compromising  with 
the  Standard  Oil  Company  and  the  Tobacco  Trust"  was 
condemned,  and  the  judicial  construction  of  the  Sherman 
law  criticized.  The  valuation  of  railways  was  favored ; 
likewise  a  single  term  for  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  anti-injunction  laws,  currency  legislation,  presi 
dential  primaries,  and  the  declaration  of  the  nation's 
purpose  to  establish  Philippine  independence  at  the 
earliest  practicable  moment. 

Mr.  Wilson's  speech  of  acceptance  partook  of  the 
character  of  an  essay  in  political  science  rather  than  of  a 
precise  definition  of  party  policies.  He  spoke  of  an 
awakened  nation,  impatient  of  partisan  make-believe, 
hindered  in  its  development  by  circumstances  of  privilege 
and  private  ad  vantage,  and  determined  to  undertake  great 


368     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

things  in  the  name  of  right  and  justice.  Departing  from 
traditions,  he  refused  to  discuss  the  terms  of  the  Balti 
more  platform,  which  he  dismissed  with  the  short  notice 
that  "the  platform  is  not  a  program."  He  devoted  no 
little  attention  to  the  spirit  of  "the  rule  of  the  people" 
as  opposed  to  the  rule  by  an  inner  coterie  of  the  privileged, 
but  he  abstained  from  discussing  directly  such  matters 
as  the  initiative,  referendum,  and  recall.  He  announced 
his  clear  conviction  that  the  only  safe  and  legitimate 
object  of  a  tariff  was  to  raise  duties,  but  he  cautioned  his 
party  against  radical  and  sudden  legislation.  He  prom 
ised  to  support  legislation  against  the  unfair  practices  of 
corporations  in  destroying  competition ;  but  he  gave  no 
solace  to  those  who  expected  a  vigorous  assault  on  trusts 
as  such. 

Indeed,  Mr.  Wilson  refused  to  commit  himself  to  the 
old  concept  of  unrestricted  competition  and  petty  busi 
ness.  "I  am  not,"  he  said,  "one  of  those  who  think  that 
competition  can  be  established  by  law  against  the  drift 
of  a  world-wide  economic  tendency.  ...  I  am  not 
afraid  of  anything  that  is  normal.  I  dare  say  we  shall 
never  return  to  the  old  order  of  individual  competition 
and  that  the  organization  of  business  upon  a  great  scale 
of  cooperation  is,  up  to  a  certain  point,  itself  normal  and 
inevitable."  Nevertheless,  he  hoped  to  see  "our  old 
free,  cooperative  life  restored,"  and  individual  oppor 
tunity  widened.  To  the  working  class  he  addressed  a 
word  of  assurance  and  confidence :  "The  working  people 
of  America  .  .  .  are  of  course  the  backbone  of  the 
Nation.  No  law  that  safeguards  their  lives,  that  im 
proves  the  physical  and  moral  conditions  under  which 


THE   CAMPAIGN  OF   1912  369 

they  live,  that  makes  their  hours  of  labor  rational  and 
tolerable,  that  gives  them  freedom  to  act  in  their  own 
interest,  and  that  protects  them  where  they  cannot 
protect  themselves,  can  properly  be  regarded  as  class 
legislation."  As  to  the  Philippines,  he  simply  said  that 
we  were  under  obligations  to  make  any  arrangement  that 
would  be  serviceable  to  their  freedom  and  development. 
The  whole  address  was  characterized  by  a  note  of  sym 
pathy  and  interest  in  the  common  lot  of  the  common 
people,  and  by  an  absence  of  any  concrete  proposals  that 
might  discourage  or  alarm  the  business  interests  of  the 
country.  It  was  a  call  to  arms,  but  it  did  not  indicate 
the  weapons. 

Mr.  Wilson's  speech  had  that  delightful  quality  of 
pleasing  all  sections  of  his  party.  The  New  York  Tifties 
saw  in  it  a  remarkable  address,  in  spite  of  what  seemed 
to  be  a  certain  remoteness  from  concrete  issues,  and  con 
gratulated  the  country  that  its  tone  and  argument  in 
dicated  a  determination  on  the  part  of  the  candidate  to 
ignore  the  Baltimore  platform.  Mr.  Bryan,  on  the 
other  hand,  appeared  to  be  immensely  pleased  with  it. 
"Governor  Wilson's  speech  accepting  the  Democratic 
nomination,"  he  said,  "is  original  in  its  method  of  deal 
ing  with  the  issues  of  the  campaign.  Instead  of  taking 
up  the  platform  plank  by  plank,  he  takes  the  central  idea 
of  the  Denver  platform  [of  1908,  Mr.  Bryan's  own,  more 
radical  still]  —  an  idea  repeated  and  emphasized  in  the 
Baltimore  platform  —  and  elaborates  it,  using  the  va 
rious  questions  under  consideration  to  illustrate  the  ap 
plication  of  the  principle.  .  .  .  Without  assuming  to 
formulate  a  detailed  plan  for  dealing  with  every  condition 

2B 


370     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

which  may  arise,  he  lifts  into  a  position  of  extreme  impor 
tance  the  dominating  thought  of  the  Baltimore  platform 
and  appeals  to  the  country  for  its  cooperation  in  mak 
ing  popular  government  a  reality  throughout  the  land." 1 

While  the  Republicans  and  Democrats  were  bringing 
their  machinery  into  action,  the  supporters  of  Mr.  Roose 
velt  were  busy  forming  the  organization  of  a  new  party. 
At  a  conference  held  shortly  after  the  break  with  the 
Republican  convention,  a  provisional  committee  had 
been  appointed,  and  on  July  8,  a  call  was  issued  for  the 
" Progressive "  convention,  which  duly  assembled  on 
August  5  at  Chicago.  This  party  assembly  was  sharply 
marked  by  the  prominence  assigned  to  women  for  the 
first  time  in  a  political  convention.  Eighteen  of  the  dele 
gates  were  women,  and  Miss  Jane  Addams,  of  the 
Hull  House,  made  one  of  the  " keynote"  speeches  of  the 
occasion.  Even  hostile  newspapers  were  forced  to  ad 
mit  that  no  other  convention  in  our  history,  except 
possibly  the  first  Republican  convention  of  1856,  rivaled 
it  in  the  enthusiasm  and  devotion  of  the  delegates.  The 
typical  politician  was  conspicuous  by  his  absence,  and  a 
spirit  of  religious  fervor  rather  than  of  manipulation 
characterized  the  proceedings.  Mr.  Roosevelt  made  a 
long  address,  his  " Confession  of  Faith,"  in  which  he 
took  a  positive  stand  on  many  questions  which  he  had 
hitherto  met  in  evasive  language,  and  a  platform  was 
adopted  which  marked  a  departure  from  the  old  party 
pronouncements,  in  that  it  stated  the  principles  with 
clarity  and  in  great  detail. 

1W.  J.  Bryan,  A  Tale  of  Two  Conventions,  p.  228. 


THE   CAMPAIGN  OF   1912  371 

The  Progressive  platform  fell  into  three  parts : 
political  reforms,  labor  and  social  measures,  and  control 
of  trusts  and  combinations.  The  first  embraced  dec 
larations  in  favor  of  direct  primaries,  including  pref 
erential  presidential  primaries,  popular  election  of 
United  States  Senators,  the  short  ballot,  the  initiative, 
referendum,  and  recall,  an  easier  method  of  amending 
the  Federal  Constitution,  woman  suffrage,  limitation  and 
publicity  of  campaign  expenditures,  and  the  recall  of 
judicial  decisions  in  the  form  of  a  popular  review  of  any 
decision  annulling  a  law  passed  under  the  police  power 
of  the  state.  The  program  of  labor  and  social  legislation 
included  the  limitation  of  the  use  of  the  injunction  in 
labor  disputes,  prohibition  of  child  labor,  minimum  wage 
standards  for  women,  the  establishment  of  minimum 
standards  as  to  health  and  safety  of  employees  and 
conditions  of  labor  generally,  the  creation  of  a  labor 
department  at  Washington,  and  the  improvement  of 
country  life. 

The  Progressives  took  a  decided  stand  against  indis 
criminate  trust  dissolutions,  declaring  that  great  com 
binations  were  in  some  degree  inevitable  and  necessary 
for  national  and  international  efficiency.  The  evils  of 
stock  watering  and  unfair  competitive  methods  should 
be  eliminated  and  the  advantages  and  economies  of 
concentration  conserved.  To  this  end,  they  urged  the 
establishment  of  a  Federal  commission  to  maintain  a 
supervision  over  corporations  engaged  in  interstate 
commerce,  analogous  to  that  exercised  by  the  Interstate 
Commerce  Commission.  As  to  railway  corporations, 
they  favored  physical  valuation.  They  demanded  the 


372     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

retention  of  the  natural  resources,  except  agricultural 
lands,  by  the  governments,  state  and  national,  and  their 
utilization  for  public  benefit.  They  favored  a  down 
ward  revision  of  the  tariff  on  a  protective  basis,  income 
and  inheritance  taxes,  the  protection  of  the  public  against 
stock  gamblers  and  promoters  and  public  ownership  of 
railways  in  Alaska. 

In  spite  of  the  exciting  contests  over  nomination  in 
both  of  the  old  parties,  the  campaign  which  followed  was 
extraordinarily  quiet.1  The  popular  vote  shows  that 
the  issues  failed  to  enlist  confidence  or  enthusiasm.  Mr. 
Roosevelt  polled  about  700,000  more  votes  than  Mr.  Taf t, 
but  their  combined  vote  was  less  than  that  polled  by  the 
latter  in  1908,  and  slightly  less  than  that  received  by  the 
former  in  1904.  Mr.  Wilson's  vote  was  more  than 
100,000  less  than  that  received  by  Mr.  Bryan  in  1896  or 
1908.  The  combined  Progressive  and  Republican  vote 
was  1,300,000  greater  than  the  Democratic  vote.  If  we 
add  the  votes  cast  for  Mr.  Debs,  the  Socialist  candidate, 
and  the  vote  received  by  the  other  minor  candidates  to 
the  Progressive  and  Republican  vote  we  have  a  majority 
of  nearly  two  and  one  half  millions  against  Mr.  Wilson. 
Yet  Mr.  Wilson,  owing  to  the  division  of  the  opposition, 
secured  435  of  the  531  electoral  votes.  The  Democrats 
retained  possession  of  the  House  of  Representatives  and 
secured  control  of  the  Senate.  The  surprise  of  the  elec 
tion  was  the  large  increase  in  the  Socialist  vote,  from 
420,000  in  1908  to  898,000,  and  this  in  spite  of  the 

1  The  most  startling  incident  was  the  attempt  of  a  maniac  at  Mil 
waukee  to  assassinate  Mr.  Roosevelt. 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF   1912  373 

socialistic  planks  in  the  Progressive  platform  which  were 
expected  to  capture  a  large  share  of  the  voters  who  had 
formerly  gone  with  the  Socialists  by  way  of  protest 
against  the  existing  parties. 

These  figures  should  not  be  taken  to  imply  that  had 
either  Mr.  Taft  or  Mr.  Roosevelt  been  eliminated  the 
Democrats  would  have  been  defeated.  On  the  con 
trary,  Mr.  Wilson  would  have  doubtless  been  elected  if 
the  Republicans  had  nominated  Mr.  Roosevelt  or  if  the 
Progressives  had  remained  out  of  the  field.  Neverthe 
less,  the  vote  would  seem  to  indicate  that  the  Democratic 
party  had  no  very  clear  and  positive  majority  mandate 
on  any  great  issue.  However  that  may  be,  the  policy 
of  the  party  as  outlined  by  its  leader  and  victorious  can 
didate  deserves  the  most  careful  analysis. 

In  the  course  of  the  campaign,  Mr.  Wilson  discussed  in 
general  terms  all  of  the  larger  issues  of  the  hour,  emphasiz 
ing  particularly  the  fact  that  an  economic  revolution  had 
changed  the  questions  of  earlier  years,  but  always  speak 
ing  of  "  restoration  "  and  a  "  recurrence  "to  older  liber  ties.1 
"Our  life  has  broken  away  from  the  past.  The  life 
of  America  is  not  the  life  that  it  was  twenty  years  ago ; 
it  is  not  the  life  that  it  was  ten  years  ago.  We  have 
changed  our  economic  conditions,  absolutely,  from  top 
to  bottom ;  and  with  our  economic  society,  the  organi 
zation  of  our  life.  The  old  political  formulas  do  not  fit 
present  problems ;  they  read  like  documents  taken  out 
of  a  forgotten  age.  The  older  cries  sound  as  if  they  be- 

1  These  speeches  were  reprinted  in  The  New  Freedom  after  the  elec 
tion. 


374     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN   HISTORY 

longed  to  a  past  which  men  have  almost  forgotten.  .  .  . 
Society  is  looking  itself  over,  in  our  day,  from  top  to 
bottom ;  is  making  fresh  and  critical  analysis  of  its  very 
elements ;  is  questioning  its  oldest  practices  as  freely  as 
its  newest,  scrutinizing  every  arrangement  and  motive 
of  its  life ;  and  it  stands  ready  to  attempt  nothing  less 
than  a  radical  reconstruction  which  only  frank  and  honest 
counsels  and  the  forces  of  generous  cooperation  can  hold 
back  from  becoming  a  revolution." 

One  of  the  most  significant  of  the  many  changes 
which  constituted  this  new  order  was,  in  Mr.  Wilson's 
opinion,  the  mastery  of  the  government  by  the  great 
business  interests.  "  Suppose  you  go  to  Washington 
and  try  to  get  at  your  government.  You  will  always 
find  that  while  you  are  politely  listened  to,  the  men 
really  consulted  are  the  men  who  have  the  biggest 
stake  —  the  big  bankers,  the  big  manufacturers,  the 
big  masters  of  commerce,  the  heads  of  railroad  corpora 
tions  and  of  steamship  corporations.  .  .  .  The  govern 
ment  of  the  United  States  at  present  is  a  foster-child 
of  the  special  interests.  It  is  not  allowed  to  have  a  will 
of  its  own.  .  .  .  The  government  of  the  United  States 
in  recent  years  has  not  been  administered  by  the  common 
people  of  the  United  States." 

Nevertheless,  while  deploring  the  control  of  the 
government  by  "big  business,"  Mr.  Wilson  made  no 
assault  on  that  type  of  economic  enterprise  as  such. 
On  the  contrary,  he  differentiated  between  big  business 
and  the  trust  very  sharply  in  general  terms.  "A  trust 
is  an  arrangement  to  get  rid  of  competition,  and  a  big 
business  is  a  business  that  has  survived  competition 


THE   CAMPAIGN  OF   1912  375 

by  conquering  in  the  field  of  intelligence  and  economy. 
A  trust  does  not  bring  efficiency  to  the  aid  of  business ; 
it  buys  efficiency  out  of  business.  I  am  for  big  busi 
ness  and  I  am  against  the  trusts.  Any  man  who  can 
survive  by  his  brains,  any  man  who  can  put  the  others 
out  of  the  business  by  making  the  thing  cheaper  to  the 
consumer  at  the  same  time  that  he  is  increasing  its  in 
trinsic  value  and  quality,  I  take  off  my  hat  to,  and  I 
say :  '  You  are  the  man  who  can  build  up  the  United 
States,  and  I  wish  there  were  more  of  you.' '  Whether 
any  big  business  in  the  staple  industries  had  been  built 
up  by  this  process,  he  did  not  indicate ;  neither  did  he 
discuss  the  question  as  to  whether  monopoly  might  not 
result  from  the  destruction  of  competitors  as  well  as 
from  the  fusion  of  competitors  into  a  trust. 

On  this  distinction  between  big  business  and  trusts 
Mr.  Wilson  built  up  his  theory  of  governmental  policy. 
The  trust,  he  said,  was  not  a  product  of  competition 
at  all,  but  of  the  unwillingness  of  business  men  to  meet 
it  —  a  distinction  which  some  were  inclined  to  regard 
as  academic.  Because  the  formation  of  no  great  trusts 
had  been  unaccompanied  by  unfair  practices,  Mr.  Wilson 
seemed  to  hold  that  no  such  concern  would  have  been 
built  up  had  unfair  practices  been  prohibited.  Ob 
viously,  therefore,  the  problem  is  a  simple  one  —  dis 
solve  the  trusts  and  prevent  their  being  reestablished 
by  prohibiting  unfair  practices  and  the  arts  of  'high 
finance. 

Indeed,  such  was  Mr.  Wilson's  program.  "  Our  pur 
pose,"  he  says,  "is  the  restoration  of  freedom.  We 
purpose  to  prevent  private  monopoly  by  law,  to  see  to 


376     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

it  that  the  methods  by  which  monopolies  have  been 
built  up  are  made  impossible."  Mr.  Wilson's  central 
idea  was  to  clear  the  field  for  the  restoration  of  competi 
tion  as  it  existed  in  the  early  days  of  mechanical  industry. 
" American  industry  is  not  free,  as  it  once  was  free; 
American  enterprise  is  not  free ;  the  man  with  only  a 
little  capital  is  finding  it  harder  to  get  into  the  field, 
more  and  more  impossible  to  compete  with  the  big 
fellow.  Why?  Because  the  laws  of  this  country  do 
not  prevent  the  strong  from  crushing  the  weak." 

"Absolutely  free  enterprise"  was  Mr.  Wilson's  lead 
ing  phrase.  "  We  design  that  the  limitations  on  private 
enterprise  shall  be  removed,  so  that  the  next  generation 
of  youngsters,  as  they  come  along,  will  not  have  to  be 
come  proteges  of  benevolent  trusts,  but  will  be  free  to 
go  about  making  their  own  lives  what  they  will;  so 
that  we  shall  taste  again  the  full  cup,  not  of  charity, 
but  of  liberty."  The  restoration  of  freedom  for  every 
person  to  go  into  business  for  himself  was  the  burden 
of  his  appeal:  "Are  you  not  eager  for  the  time  when 
the  genius  and  initiative  of  all  the  people  shall  be  called 
into  the  service  of  business?  .  .  .  when  your  sons 
shall  be  able  to  look  forward  to  becoming  not  em 
ployees,  but  heads  of  some  small,  it  may  be,  but  hopeful 
business,  where  their  best  energies  shall  be  inspired  by 
the  knowledge  that  they  are  their  own  masters  with 
the  paths  of  the  world  before  them  .  .  .  and  every 
avenue  of  commercial  and  industrial  activity  leveled 
for  the  feet  of  all  who  would  tread  it  ?" 

Mr.  Wilson's  economic  system  seems  to  be  susceptible 
of  the  following  summary.  The  great  trusts  are  "un- 


THE   CAMPAIGN  OF   1912  377 

natural  products/'  not  of  competition,  but  of  the  unwill 
ingness  of  men  to  face  competition  and  of  unfair  prac 
tices.  Big  business  is  the  product  of  genuine  services 
to  the  community,  and  it  should  be  allowed  to  destroy 
whom  it  can  by  fairly  underselling  honest  goods.  The 
enemy  is,  therefore,  the  trust ;  it  is  the  trust  which  pre 
vents  everybody  who  would  from  becoming  his  own 
master  in  some  small  business ;  it  is  the  trust  that 
has  taken  away  the  "  freedom"  which  we  once  had  in 
the  United  States.  The  remedy  is  inevitably  the 
dissolution  of  the  trusts,  the  prohibition  of  unfair  prac 
tices  in  competition  —  then  will  follow  as  night  the  day 
that  perfect  freedom  which  is  as  new  wine  to  a  sick 
nation.  With  competition  " restored"  and  maintained 
by  government  prosecution  of  offenders,  no  one  need 
have  a  master  unless  he  chooses. 

Mr.  Wilson's  opponents  saw  in  this  simple  industrial 
program  nothing  more  than  the  old  gospel  of  Adam  Smith 
and  Ricardo  —  the  gospel  of  laissez  faire  and  individual 
ism.  They  asked  him  to  specify,  for  example,  into  how 
many  concerns  the  Steel  Trust  should  be  dissolved  in 
order  to  permit  the  man  with  brains  and  a  few  thousand 
dollars  capital  to  get  into  the  steel  business.  They 
asked  him  to  name  a  catalogue  of  " unfair  practices" 
which  were  to  be  prohibited  in  order  to  put  competi 
tion  on  a  "free  and  natural"  basis.  They  asked  him 
to  state  just  how,  with  the  present  accumulation  of 
great  capitals  in  the  hands  of  a  relatively  few,  the  poor 
but  industrious  person  with  small  capital  could  meet 
the  advantages  afforded  by  large  capitals.  They  in 
quired  whether  England  in  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth 


378     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

century,  with  this  perfect  industrial  ideal  and  free  trade 
besides,  presented  the  picture  of  Utopian  liberty  which 
the  new  freedom  promised. 

To  this  demand  for  more  particulars,  Mr.  Wilson 
replied  that  he  was  not  discussing  "measures  or  pro 
grams,"  but  was  merely  attempting  "to  express  the 
new  spirit  of  our  politics  and  to  set  forth,  in  large  terms, 
which  may  stick  in  the  imagination,  what  it  is  that 
must  be  done  if  we  are  to  restore  our  politics  to  their 
full  spiritual  vigor  again,  and  our  national  life  whether 
in  trade,  in  industry,  or  in  what  concerns  us  only  as 
families  and  individuals,  to  its  purity,  its  self-respect, 
and  its  pristine  strength  and  freedom." 

For  the  concrete  manifestation  of  his  general  prin 
ciples  Mr.  Wilson  referred  to  his  practical  achievements 
in  New  Jersey,  although  at  the  time  of  the  campaign 
he  had  not  yet  put  through  his  program  of  trust  legis 
lation  —  a  fact  which  was  not  overlooked  by  his  oppo 
nents.  He  referred  to  his  public  service  commission  law, 
modeled  on  that  which  had  been  in  effect  for  some 
time  in  Wisconsin.  "  A  year  or  two  ago  we  got  our  ideas 
on  the  subject  enacted  into  legislation.  The  corpora 
tions  involved  opposed  the  legislation  with  all  their 
might.  They  talked  about  ruin,  —  and  I  really  believe 
they  did  think  they  would  be  somewhat  injured.  But 
they  have  not  been.  And  I  hear  I  cannot  tell  you  how 
many  men  in  New  Jersey  say :  '  Governor,  we  were  op 
posed  to  you  ;  we  did  not  believe  in  the  things  you  wanted 
to  do,  but  now  that  you  have  done  them,  we  take  off 
our  hats.  That  was  the  thing  to  do,  it  did  not  hurt  us 
a  bit ;  it  just  put  us  on  a  normal  footing ;  it  took  away 


THE   CAMPAIGN  OF   1912  379 

suspicion  from  our  business.'  New  Jersey,  having  taken 
the  cold  plunge,  cries  out  to  the  rest  of  the  states,  '  Come 
on  in!  The  water's  fine.'" 

In  another  place,  Mr.  Wilson  summed  up  his  program 
of  redemption  in  New  Jersey :  a  workman's  compensa 
tion  act,  a  public  service  corporations  law,  and  a  corrupt 
practices  act.  This  program  of  legislation  was  viewed 
by  Mr.  Wilson  as  an  extraordinary  achievement.  "  What 
was  accomplished?"  he  asked.  "Mere  justice  to 
classes  that  had  not  been  treated  justly  before.  .  .  . 
When  the  people  had  taken  over  the  control  of  the 
government,  a  curious  change  was  wrought  in  the  souls 
of  a  great  many  men ;  a  sudden  moral  awakening  took 
place,  and  we  simply  could  not  find  culprits  against 
whom  to  bring  indictments ;  it  was  like  a  Sunday  School, 
the  way  they  obeyed  the  laws." 

It  was  on  his  theory  of  the  trusts  that  Mr.  Wilson 
based  his  opposition  to  all  attempts  at  government 
regulation.  Under  the  plan  of  regulation,  put  forward 
by  the  Progressives,  said  Mr.  Wilson,  "there  will  be  an 
avowed  partnership  between  the  government  and  the 
trusts.  I  take  it  the  firm  will  be  ostensibly  controlled 
by  the  senior  member.  For  I  take  it  that  the  govern 
ment  of  the  United  States  is  at  least  the  senior  member, 
though  the  younger  member  has  all  along  been  running 
the  business.  .  .  .  There  is  no  hope  to  be  seen  for  the 
people  of  the  United  States  until  the  partnership  is 
dissolved.  And  the  business  of  the  party  now  intrusted 
with  power  is  to  dissolve  it."  In  other  words,  the  gov 
ernment  was,  in  his  opinion,  too  weak  to  force  the  trusts 
to  obey  certain  rules  and  regulations,  but  it  was  strong 


380     CONTEMPORARY  AMERICAN  HISTORY 

enough  to  take  their  business  away  from  them  and  pre 
vent  their  ever  getting  together  again.  Apparently, 
Mr.  Wilson  did  not  expect  to  find  that  cordial  coopera 
tion  from  the  national  trust  magnates  which  he  found 
on  the  part  of  New  Jersey  public  service  corporations 
when  he  undertook  to  regulate  them. 

Mr.  Wilson's  political  program  was  more  definite. 
His  short  experience  in  New  Jersey  politics  had  evi 
dently  wrought  great  changes  in  his  earlier  academic 
views.  In  1907,  he  thought  that  the  United  States 
Senate,  "  represents  the  country  as  distinct  from  the 
accumulated  populations  of  the  country,  much  more 
fully  and  much  more  truly  than  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives  does."  In  the  presidential  campaign,  he 
advocated  popular  election  of  United  States  Senators, 
principally  on  the  ground  "that  a  little  group  of  Senators 
holding  the  balance  of  power  has  again  and  again  been 
able  to  defeat  programs  of  reform  upon  which  the  whole 
country  has  set  its  heart."  He  did  not  attack  the 
Senate  as  a  body,  but  he  thought  sinister  influences 
had  often  been  at  work  there.  However,  Mr.  Wilson 
declared  that  the  popular  election  of  Senators  was  not 
inconsistent  with  "either  the  spirit  or  the  essential 
form  of  the  American  government." 

As  to  those  other  devices  of  direct  democracy,  the 
initiative,  referendum,  and  recall,  Mr.  Wilson  admitted 
that  there  were  some  states  where  it  was  premature  to 
discuss  them,  and  added  that  in  some  states  it  might 
never  be  necessary  to  discuss  them.  The  initiative 
and  referendum,  he  approved  as  a  sort  of  "gun  behind 
the  door, "  to  be  used  rarely  when  representative  in- 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF   1912  381- 

stitutions  failed;  and  as  to  the  recall  he  remarked,  "I 
don't  see  how  any  man  grounded  in  the  traditions  of 
American  affairs  can  find  any  valid  objection  to  the 
recall  of  administrative  officers."  The  recall  of  judges, 
however,  he  opposed  positively  and  without  qualifica 
tion,  pointing  out  that  the  remedy  for  evils  in  the  judi 
cial  system  lay  in  methods  of  nomination  and  election. 
Such  was  the  economic  and  political  philosophy  of 
the  new  Democratic  President  inaugurated  on  March 
4,  19*3- 


APPENDIX 


B  I 


PH      4 


ll 


CANDIDATES  FO 
VICE  PRESIDEN 


TES 
IDE 


Jll 


jjjjii 

-^J3  £•  R.M 

ls<3a| 
S<hHa<a 

"Ills 

H'^CO'OQ 


10  O   O  P»  v 

oo  »/>  •*  <s 

OO   C*  t^*  tO^ 


• 

sTs  a 


Tilden 
B.  Hayes 
per 
y  Smith... 
alker 


Cay 
B.  W 


Samuel 
Rutherford 
Peter  Coop 
Green  Clay 
James 


to  O  O  O 

o,  ^  "2  *- 

O 


J  i  :•§ 

l&fifi 


*    O) 

* 


e  ««g 

ll  ill 


lit 

u  cm^ 

n'S   C!^' 

l-llgw 

S    4JS-2      • 

OP5CJ<l^h 


J. 
Co 
L. 


00  OOOO    fO  •* 
MOM    CO^O 

O;  M_  O^  M_  M_ 
\O~vo"  M*  T?  M" 


APPENDIX 


383 


- 


o  o 


O\     10      l^OO 

r*    «     O  ^f 

Ov     O   H  U 


ON  H   ON  criOO  t^  O  N 

1^00"  oo"  o"  t^  cR  M" 

O   to  O   tooO   ro 


ON  H        00  w 


00     M    O>  M  NO 


;*  i ;« .. 

&SJ  Pf^  u 


TOR 

T 


ley* 
n 
an 

hett 
ey. 


®a  a    •    -fl JB   S?fl  J    •    •    •    •    • 

•^rtrtbfi££:n    -£§£>££  frlS     ' 

WwlQJlnjL 


m 
m 
m 
Leveri 
.  Pal 
H.  M 
E.  Be 


SSS'j^s-   SSdj 

iiljjiilii.jij 

p:fe:^A^6u  £££.? 


lllll 


£  g 


»     -1      Id.; 
(3  .J  >    ;<3  B 


llllll 


i       i 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Guide  to  Literature  of  Current  History 

THE  best  general  bibliography  for  handy  use  is  Channing,  Hart, 
and  Turner,  Guide  to  the  Study  and  Reading  of  American  History 
(new  ed.  1912). 

G.  E.  Howard,  Present  Political  Questions  (1913)  —  a  valuable 
syllabus  of  current  questions  with  discriminating  and  full  bibliog 
raphies  (published  by  the  University  of  Nebraska). 

The  Library  of  Congress  publishes  useful  bibliographies  on  spe 
cial  topics  of  current  political  and  historical  interest.  A  list  may 
be  obtained  by  addressing  the  Librarian,  Washington,  D.C. 

An  important  annual  review  of  the  current  literature  of  Ameri 
can  history  is  to  be  found  in  Writings  on  American  History;  pub 
lished  by  Macmillan,  1906-1908;  by  the  American  Historical 
Association,  1909-1911;  and  now  by  the  Yale  University  Press. 

Excellent  topical  bibliographies  are  to  be  found  in  each  of  the 
volumes  in  Hart,  American  Nation  Series.  The  four  volumes  by 
Dunning,  Sparks,  Dewey,  and  Latane  should  be  consulted  for 
the  period  here  covered. 

General  Works 

The  best  general  treatment  of  the  period  from  1877  to  1907  is 
to  be  found  in  the  four  volumes  of  the  American  Nation  Series 
edited  by  A.  B.  Hart:  W.  A.  Dunning,  Reconstruction :  Political 
and  Economic;  E.  E.  Sparks,  National  Development,  1877-1885; 
D.  R.  Dewey,  National  Problems;  1885-1897;  J.  H.  Latane, 
America  as  a  World  Power,  1897-1907.  Each  of  these  volumes 
contains  an  excellent  bibliography  of  political  and  economic 
materials. 

2C  385 


386  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

H.  T.  Peck,  Twenty  Years  of  the  Republic  (1906)  —  readable 
work  covering  the  period  from  Cleveland's  first  administration 
to  1905. 

Edward  Stanwood,  History  of  the  Presidency  (1896  ed.).  A 
second  volume  (1912)  brings  the  work  down  to  1909  and  contains 
the  platforms  of  1912  —  useful  for  political  sketches  and  the  plat 
forms  and  election  statistics. 

The  American  Year  Book,  published  since  1910,  contains  an 
annual  survey  of  American  political  history  and  constitutional 
and  social  development. 

For  political  and  economic  matters  see  the  current  publications 
and  proceedings  of  the  American  Political  Science  Association, 
the  American  Economic  Association,  and  the  American  Sociologi 
cal  Society. 

Personal  and  Biographical  Works 

J.  P.  Altgeld,  Live  Questions  (1890)  —  valuable  for  the  radical 
movement  within  the  Democratic  party. 

F.  Bancroft,  Speeches,  Correspondence  and  Political  Papers  of 
Carl  Schurz  (1913),  6  vols. 

John  Bigelow,  Life  of  Samuel  J.  Tilden  (1896). 

G.  S.  Boutwell,  Reminiscences  of  Sixty  Years  (1902). 
Grover  Cleveland,  The  Independence  of  the  Executive  (1900) ; 

Presidential  Problems  (1904)  —  particularly  valuable  for  the 
Chicago  strike  and  the  bond  issues ;  G.  F.  Parker,  Writings  and 
Speeches  of  Grover  Cleveland  (1892) ;  A.  E.  Bergh,  Addresses,  State 
Papers,  and  Letters  of  Grover  Cleveland  (1909). 

J.  A.  Garfield,  Currency  Speeches  in  the  House,  1868-1870; 
B.  A.  Hinsdale,  Works  of  J.  A.  Garfield  (1882-1883)  2  vols. ;  Great 
Speeches  of  J.  A.  Garfield  (1881). 

Benjamin  Harrison,  Public  Papers  and  Addresses  (Govt.  Print 
ing  Office,  1893) ;  This  Country  of  Ours  (1897)  —  a  popular  view 
of  the  national  government ;  J.  S.  Shriver,  Speeches  of  Benjamin 
Harrison  (1891);  M.  L.  Harrison,  Views  of  an  Ex-President  [Har 
rison]  (1901). 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  387 

G.  F.  Hoar,  Autobiography  of  Seventy  Years  (1903). 

R.  M.  La  Follette,  Autobiography  (1913)  — particularly  valuable 
for  the  history  of  the  radical  movement  within  the  Republican 
party  and  the  origin  of  the  Progressive  party. 

Wm.  McKinley,  Speeches  and  Addresses  from  Election  to  Congress 
to  the  Present  Time  (1893) ;  Speeches  and  Addresses,  1897-1900 
(1900);  The  Tariff  —  a  Review  of  Its  Legislation  from  1812  to 
1896  (1904) ;  J.  S.  Ogilvie,  Life  and  Speeches  of  McKinley  (1896) ; 

L.  A.  Coolidge  An  Old-Fashioned  Senator  [O.  H.  Platt]  (1910). 

Thomas  C.  Platt,  Autobiography  (1910). 

Theodore  Roosevelt,  The  New  Nationalism  (1910)  contains  the 
famous  speech  on  that  subject  and  other  essays;  An  Autobiog 
raphy  (1913)  —  an  intimate  view  of  his  political  career. 

John  Sherman,  Recollections  of  Forty  Years  (1897). 

Edward  Stanwood,  James  G.  Elaine  (1905). 

W.  H.  Taft,  Political  Issues  and  Outlooks  (1909) ;  Presidential 
Addresses  and  State  Papers  (1910). 

Woodrow  Wilson,  The  New  Freedom  (1913).  An  edited  collec 
tion  of  President  Wilson's  campaign  speeches  arranged  to  exhibit 
in  systematic  form  his  political  and  economic  doctrines. 

Topical  Bibliography 

THE  ECONOMIC  REVOLUTION  :  Coman,  Economic  History  of  the 
United  States  (1911  ed.)  — several  useful  chapters^on  the  period 
since  the  Civil  War ;  R.  T.  Ely,  Evolution  of  Industrial  Society 
(1906). 

TARIFF:  Edward  Stanwood,  American  Tariff  Controversies  in 
the  Nineteenth  Century  (1903) ;  F.  W.  Taussig,  Tariff  History  of 
the  United  States  (1910  ed.). 

FINANCE  :  See  the  annual  review  in  the  American  Year  Book; 
D.  R.  Dewey,  Financial  History  of  the  United  States  (1903) ;  A.  B. 
Hepburn,  History  of  Coinage  and  Currency  in  the  United  States 
(1903) ;  J.  L.  Laughlin,  History  of  Bimetallism  in  the  United  States 
(1897) ;  W.  H.  Harvey,  Coin's  Financial  School  (1894)  —  the 
famous  work  which  did  so  much  to  stir  up  popular  sentiment  in 


388  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

favor  of  free  silver;    W.  J.  Bryan,  The  First  Battle  (1897)  — 
invaluable  for  the  political  aspects  of  the  question. 

TRUSTS  :  I.  M.  Tarbell,  The  History  of  the  Standard  Oil  Com 
pany  (1904) ;  G.  H.  Montague,  The  Rise  and  Progress  of  the  Stand 
ard  Oil  Company  (1903) — more  favorable  to  trusts  than  the 
preceding  work;  H.  D.  Lloyd,  Wealth  against  Commonwealth 
(1894)  — a  critical  attack  on  the  evil  practices  of  trusts;  J.  W. 
Jenks,  The  Trust  Problem  (1905  ed.)  —  study  of  the  methods  and 
causes  of  trusts ;  John  Moody,  The  Truth  about  the  Trusts  (1904) 
—  full  of  valuable  historical  and  statistical  data;  W.  Z.  Ripley, 
Trusts j  Pools,  and  Corporations  (1905)  —  a  useful  collection  of 
historical  and  descriptive  materials. 

RAILWAYS:  W.  Z.  Ripley,  Railroads:  Rates  and  Regulation 
(1913) — a  monumental  and  scholarly  treatise;  E.  R.  Johnson, 
American  Railway  Transportation  (1903) ;  H.  S.  Haines,  Restric 
tive  Railway  Legislation  in  the  United  States  (1905) ;  B.  H.  Meyer, 
Railway  Legislation  in  the  United  States  (1903). 

CIVIL  SERVICE:  C.  R.  Fish,  Civil  Service  and  the  Patronage 
(1905,  Harvard  Studies) ;  L.  G.  Tyler,  Parties  and  Patronage 
(1888). 

POPULISM:  S.  J.  Buck,  The  Granger  Movement  .  .  .  iS'jo- 
1880  (1913,  Harvard  Studies)  —  important  for  all  aspects  of 
agrarianism  for  the  period ;  F.  L.  McVey,  The  Populist  Movement 
(1896). 

LABOR  :  R.  T.  Ely,  The  Labor  Movement  in  America  (1902) ; 
T.  V.  Powderly,  Thirty  Years  of  Labor  (1889) ;  John  Mitchell, 
Organized  Labor  (1903) ;  T.  S.  Adams  and  H.  Sumner,  Labor 
Problems  (1906). 

IMMIGRATION  :  Frank  Warne,  The  Immigrant  Invasion  (1913) ; 
Peter  Roberts,  The  New  Immigration  (1912)  —  a  study  of  the 
social  and  industrial  life  of  Southeastern  Europeans  in  America; 
H.  P.  Fairchild,  Greek  Immigration  (1911),  and  Immigration:  a 
World  Movement  and  its  American  Significance  (1913) ;  P.  F. 
Hall,  Immigration  and  Its  Effects  on  the  United  States  (1908) ; 
I.  A.  Hourwich,  Immigration  and  Labor  (1912) — a  study  of 
the  economic  aspects  of  immigration  and  favorable  to  a  liberal 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  389 

immigration  policy ;  J.  W.  Jenks  and  W.  J.  Lauck,  The  Immigration 
Problem  (1912) — particularly  valuable  for  the  data  presented. 

SOCIALISM  :  Morris  Hillquit,  History  of  Socialism  in  the  United 
States  (1910) ;  W.  J.  Ghent,  Mass  and  Class  (1904) ;  J.  W.  Hughan, 
American  Socialism  of  To-day  (1912);  W.  E.  Walling,  Socialism 
as  It  Is  (1912).  On  the  newer  aspects  of  socialism  and  trades- 
unionism:  John  Spargo,  Syndicalism,  Industrial  Unionism,  and 
Socialism  (1913) ;  A.  Tridon,  The  New  Unionism  (1913) ;  J.  G. 
Brooks,  American  Syndicalism  (1913) ;  W.  H.  Haywood  and  F. 
Bohn,  Industrial  Socialism  (1911);  James  O'Neal,  Militant 
Socialism  (1912). 

WOMEN:  Edith  Abbott,  Women  in  Industry  (1909);  E.  D. 
Bullock,  Selected  Articles  on  the  Employment  of  Women  (1911); 
E.  B.  Butler,  Women  in  the  Trades  (1909) ;  R.  C.  Dorr,  What  Eight 
Million  Women  Want  (1910) ;  I.  H.  Harper,  Life  and  Work  of 
Susan  B.  Anthony  (1899-1908),  History  of  the  Movement  for  Woman 
Suffrage  in  the  United  States  (1907) ;  E.  R.  Hecker,  Short  History 
of  Woman's  Rights  (1910) ;  G.  E.  Howard,  A  History  of  Matri 
monial  Institutions  (1904) ;  Helen  Sumner,  Equal  Suffrage  (1909) 
—  a  study  of  woman  suffrage  in  Colorado ;  C.  P.  Gilman,  Woman 
and  Economics  (1900). 

CONTROVERSY  OVER  THE  JUDICIARY  :  Gilbert  Roe,  Our  Judicial 
Oligarchy  (1912)  — a  criticism  of  recent  tendencies  in  the  Ameri 
can  judicial  system ;  B.  F.  Moore,  The  Supreme  Court  and  Uncon 
stitutional  Legislation  (1913)  —  a  historical  survey ;  W.  L.  Ransom 
Majority  Rule  and  the  Judiciary  (1912) ;  F.  R.  Coudert,  Certainty 
and  Justice  (1913) ;  G.  G.  Groat,  Attitude  of  American  Courts  in 
Labor  Cases  (1911);  C.  G.  Haines,  The  American  Doctrine  of 
Judicial  Supremacy  (1914). 

POPULAR  GOVERNMENT  :  G.  H.  Haynes,  The  Election  of  Senators 
(1906) — valuable  for  the  question  of  popular  election;  C.  A. 
Beard  and  Birl  Shultz,  Documents  on  the  Initiative,  Referendum  and 
Recall  (1912);  E.  P.  Oberholtzer,  Initiative,  Referendum,  and 
Recall  in  America  (1911);  Walter  Weyl,  The  New  Democracy 
(1912) ;  H.  Croly,  The  Promise  of  American  Life  (1909). 

THE  SOUTH  :   A.  B.  Hart,  The  Southern  South  (1910) ;   E.  G. 


3QO  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Murphy,  Problems  of  the  Present  South  (1904) ;  H.  W.  Grady,  The 
New  South  (1890) ;  W.  G.  Brown,  The  Lower  South  (1902). 

THE  NEGRO  PROBLEM  :  The  Annals  of  the  American  Academy 
of  Political  and  Social  Science  for  September,  1913,  is  devoted  to 
articles  on  the  progress  of  the  negro  race  during  the  last  fifty  years. 
A.  P.  C.  Griffin,  Select  List  of  References  on  the  Negro  Question 
(1906,  Library  of  Congress) ;  R.  S.  Baker,  Following  the  Color 
Line  (1908)  —  valuable  for  the  handicaps  imposed  on  the  negro 
in  the  South;  J.  M.  Mathews,  Legislative  and  Judicial  History 
of  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  (1909) ;  M.  W.  Ovington,  Half  a  Man 
(1911)  —  status  of  the  negro  in  New  York ;  T.  N.  Page,  The  Negro 
(1904)  —  viewed  as  a  Southern  problem ;  A.  H.  Stone,  Studies  in 
the  American  Race  Problem  (1908)  —  discouraging  view  of  the 
economic  capacities  of  the  negro;  B.  T.  Washington,  The  Negro 
in  the  South  (1907)  —  useful  for  economic  matters ;  and  The 
Future  of  the  Negro  (1900) ;  A.  B.  Hart,  Realities  of  Negro  Suf 
frage  (1905) ;  G.  T.  Stephenson,  Race  Distinctions  in  American 
Law  (1910). 

THE  GROWTH  OF  THE  WEST  :  H.  H.  Bancroft,  Chronicles  of  the 
Builders  of  the  Commonwealth  (1891-1892),  7  vols. ;  J.  C.  Birge,  The 
Awakening  of  the  Desert  (1912) ;  C.  C.  Coffin,  The  Seat  of  Empire 
(1871) ;  Katharine  Coman,  Economic  Beginnings  of  the  Far  West 
(1912),  2  vols. — exploration  and  settlement;  J.  H.  Eckels,  The 
Financial  Power  of  the  New  West  (1905) ;  F.  V.  Hayden,  The  Great 
West  (1880) — resources,  climate,  Mormons,  and  Indians;  J.  S. 
Hittell,  The  Commerce  and  Industries  of  the  Pacific  Coast  (1882) ; 
R.  P.  Porter  and  others,  The  West  (1882)  —  review  of  social  and 
economic  development  from  the  census  of  1880;  L.  E.  Quigg, 
New  Empires  in  the  Northwest  (1889)  — Dakotas,  Montana,  and 
Washington;  Julian  Ralph,  Our  Great  West  (1893) — survey  of 
conditions;  Joseph  Schafer,  A  History  of  the  Pacific  Northwest 
(1905) ;  W.  E.  Smyth,  The  Conquest  of  Arid  Arizona  (1900). 

MONROE  DOCTRINE:  J.  B.  Moore,  History  of  American  Di 
plomacy  (1905) ;  J.  W.  Foster,  A  Century  of  American  Diplomacy 
(1901) ;  J.  H.  Latane,  Diplomatic  Relations  of  the  United  States 
and  Spanish  America  (1900) ;  A.  B.  Hart,  Foundations  of  American 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  391 

Diplomacy  (1901) ;  Hiram  Bingham,  The  Monroe  Doctrine  (1913) 
—  a  severe  criticism  of  the  Doctrine. 

THE  SPANISH  WAR  :  F.  E.  Chadwick,  Relations  of  the  United 
States  and  Spain  —  excellent  for  diplomatic  affairs ;  H.  C.  Lodge, 
The  War  with  Spain  (1899)  —  an  interesting  popular  account; 
H.  D.  Flack,  Spanish- American  Diplomatic  Relations  Preceding 
the  War  of  1898  (1906)  —  a  careful  analysis  of  the  causes  of  inter 
vention;  George  Dewey,  Autobiography  (1913). 

IMPERIALISM:  D.  C.  Worcester,  The  Philippines:  Past  and 
Present  (1914),  2  vols.  —  a  great  and  authoritative  work  by  the 
former  Secretary  of  the  Interior  in  the  Philippines ;  H.  P.  Willis, 
Our  Philippine  Problem  (1905)  —  a  study  of  American  Colonial 
policy;  J.  A.  Leroy,  The  Americans  in  the  Philippines  (1914)  — 
a  large  and  authoritative  work  on  the  early  stages  of  American 
occupation;  F.  C.  Chamberlin,  The  Philippine  Problem  (1913); 
J.  G.  Schurman,  Philippine  Fundamentals  (1901) ;  Elihu  Root, 
Collection  of  Documents  Relating  to  the  United  States  and  Porto 
Rico  (1898-1905,  Washington) ;  L.  S.  Rowe,  The  United  States 
and  Porto  Rico  (1904) ;  E.  S.  Wilson,  Political  Development  of 
Porto  Rico  (1906) ;  W.  F.  Willoughby,  Territories  and  Depend 
encies  of  the  United  States  (1905)  —  a  general  work  on  the  govern 
ment  of  the  territories. 

THE  PANAMA  CANAL:  J.  B.  Bishop,  The  Panama  Gateway 
(1913)  —  an  authoritative  general  account;  W.  F.  Johnson,  Four 
Centuries  of  the  Panama  Canal  (1906). 

THE  PEACE  CONFERENCES  :  Joseph  Choate,  The  Two  Hague 
Conferences  (1913) ;  J.  B.  Scott,  The  Hague  Peace  Conferences  of 
1899  and  1907  (1909). 

AMERICAN  INTERESTS  IN  THE  ORIENT  :  F.  F.  Millard,  The  New 
Far  East  (1906)  —  special  reference  to  American  interests  in 
China;  P.  S.  Reinsch,  World  Politics  (1900). 


INDEX 


Aguinaldo,  217 

Alabama,  disfranchisement  of  negroes 

in,  ii 

Aliens,  proportion  of,  248 
Altgeld,  Governor,  108,  160 
American  Civic  Federation,  251 
American  Federation  of  Labor,  250 
Anti-monopoly  party,  138 
Anti-trust  cases,  331  ff. 
Anti-trust  law  (1890),  134 
Arbitration  in  labor  disputes,  federal 

law,  102 

Arbitration,  treaties,  1911,  329 
Archbald,  Judge,  impeachment  of,  326 
Arizona,  41  ff . ;    contest  over  recall  of 

judges,  287 

Army.     See  Spanish  War 
Arthur,  Chester   A.,  nomination,  95; 

administration,  97 

Ballinger,  R.  A.,  328 

Elaine,  James  G.,  95 ;  candidacy  in 
1884,  98;  on  silver  question,  121 

Bland- Allison  bill,  123 

Bonds,  sales  under  Cleveland,  106 

Bourne,  Senator,  attacks  on  conven 
tion  system,  353  ff. 

Bryan,  W.  J.,  speech  in  Democratic 
convention  of  1896,  180;  nomina 
tion  of,  187;  acceptance  speech  in 
1896,  1 88;  favors  initiative  and 
referendum,  284;  candidacy  in 
1900,  227 ;  candidacy  in  1908, 
318  ff. ;  program  in  1908,  318; 
attacks  Taft's  judicial  appointments, 
330 

Campaign  funds,  239,  240  ff . ;  contro 
versy  over,  in  1904,  268;  in  1908, 
320;  in  1912,  357 

Campaign,  1896,  195 


Canada,  reciprocity  with,  342 

Cannon,  Speaker,  overthrow  of,  336  ff. 

Capital,  influence  of,  in  politics,  33 

Capitalism,  in  South,  48 ;  evolution  of, 
229  ff.  See  Industry  and  Labor. 

Cervera,  Admiral,  210  ff. 

China,  opening  of,  203;  American 
interests  in,  224 

Chinese  coolies,  35 

Cities,  growth  of  population,  34,  247 

Civil  rights  act,  14  ff. 

Civil  rights  cases,  15 

Civil  service,  and  Theodore  Roosevelt, 
104;  law  of  1883,  130 

Clark,  Champ,  candidacy  of,  365 

Clayton-Bulwer  treaty,  276 

Cleveland,  Grover,  career  of,  97; 
nomination  and  first  administra 
tion,  98  ff . ;  second  administration, 
105  ff. ;  tariff  message  of  1887,  no; 
and  income  tax,  139;  bond  issues, 
162  ;  supports  Gold  Democrats,  193  ; 
and  Venezuela  affair,  199;  and 
negotiations  with  Spain,  206 

Coastwise  vessels,  exemption  of,  276 
Colombia,  failure  of  negotiations  with, 

278 

Combinations,  in  business,  origin  of, 
36 

'ommerce,  growth  of,  202 ;  inter 
state,  312 

Conkling,  Roscoe,  sketch  of,  51  ff. ; 
and  Grant's  candidacy,  95 

Conservation,  Roosevelt's  policy,  275 
Consolidated  Gas  case,  81 
Constitution,    provisions    relative    to 

money,  119;  criticism  of,  305  ff. 
Convention,   presidential,   attacks  on, 

353  ff. 

Corporations,  growth  of,  235 ;  regu 
lation  of,  310.  See  Trusts. 


393 


394 


INDEX 


Court,  commerce,  326 

Courts,  criticism  of,  89 

Coxey's  army,  107 

Credit  Mobilier  affair,  31 

Cuba,  conditions  in,  204;  war  over, 
209  ff. ;  settlement  of,  after  the 
war,  221;  interference  in  (1906), 

222 

Currency,  law  of  1908,  197 

Dakota,  41  ff. 

Daniel,  J.  W.,  temporary  chairman  of 
Democratic  convention,  171 

Debs,  E.  V.,  imprisonment  of,  108; 
and  injunctions,  160;  candidate  for 
President,  298 

Debt,  national,  refunding  of,  117 

De  Lome  incident,  207 

Democrats,  contest  against  election 
laws,  4  ff. ;  party  platforms,  108  ff. ; 
convention  of  1896,  168  ff. ;  plat 
form  of  1896,  172 ;  Gold,  conven 
tion  of  1896,  192  ff.;  convention 
and  platform  of  1904,  267 ;  victory 
in  1910,  339;  in  1912,  372 

Dewey,  victory  at  Manila,  209 

Dingley  tariff,  229 

Direct  primary,  289 

Due  process.  See  Fourteenth  amend 
ment. 

Economy  and   efficiency   commission, 

328 

El  Caney,  211 
Election   laws,    federal,    contest   over 

repeal  of,  4  ff. 

Employers'  liability,  federal,  274 
Erie  Railway,  capitalization  of,  39 

Farmers,  discontent  of,  162 

Farmers'  Alliance,  151 

Farm  population,  40 

Farms,  increase  in  number,  40;    size 

of,  in  South,  47 
Fifteenth  amendment,  nullification  of, 

in  the  South,  i ;    schemes  to  avoid, 

>9ff. 

Finance,  high,  early  experiments  in,  39 
Fourteenth  Amendment,  interpretation 

of,  54  ff- 


Free  silver,  discussion  by  W.  J.  Bryan, 

iSoff. 
Free  silver.    See  Bryan,  W.  J. 

Garfield,  nomination  and  administra 
tion  of,  94  ff. ;  assassination,  96 

Georgia,  disfranchisement  of  negroes 
in,  ii 

Gold  Democrats,  192  ff. 

Gold  standard,  Republicans  favor  in 
1896,  166;  established  by  law 
(1900),  197 ;  Parker  telegram  on,  267 

Gompers,  Samuel,  251 

Gould,  Jay,  38 

Granger  cases,  67  ff. 

Granger  movement,  147 

Grant,  third  term  contest,  94 

Great  Britain,  and  Venezuela  affair, 
199 

Greenback  party,  on  income  tax,  137; 
doctrines  of,  150 

Greenbacks,  amount  of,  117;  reissue 
of,  123 

Guiteau,  assassinates  Garfield,  96 

Hague  conference,  281 

Hancock,   General,   candidate  for  the 

Presidency,  96 
Hanna,   M.   A.,   convention   of   1895, 

165;    and  campaign  of   1900,   227; 

career  and  policies  of,  239  ff. 
Harriman,  E.  H.,  and  controversy  with 

Roosevelt,  270 
Harrison,    Benjamin,    candidacy    and 

administration,  103  ff. 
Hawaiian  Islands,  203 
Hayes,  and  the  South,  i  ff.;    vetoes 

repeal  of  election  laws,  5 ;   adminis 
tration  of,  92  ff. 
Hay-Pauncefote  treaty,  276 
Hay  wood,  W.  D.,  301 
Hepburn  act,  271 
Hill,  D.  B.,  in  Democratic  convention 

of  1896,  170  ff. 
Hobson,  R.  P.,  210 

Idaho,  41  ff. 
Immigration,  34,  248 
Imperialism,    199    ff. ;     in    American 
politics,  227 


INDEX 


395 


Income  tax,  law  of  1894,  127;   137  ff.  ; 

annulled  by  Supreme  Court,  152  ff. ; 

W.  J.  Bryan  on,  189 ;  advocated  by 

Roosevelt,     262 ;      amendment     to 

federal  constitution,  325 
Industry,  in  1860,  29;    in  South,  48. 

See  Labor. 

Industrial  Workers  of  the  World,  301 
Initiative  and  referendum,  origin  and 

growth  of,  284  ff. ;    in  Progressive 

platform,  371;    favored  by  Wilson, 

380 
Injunctions,  use  of,  in  labor  disputes, 

36 ;   an  issue  in  politics,  158  ff. 
Insular  cases,  218  ff. 
Insurance,  regulation  of,  310 

Japan,    opening    of,    203;     American 

interests  in,  224 
Jenks,  J.  W.,  on  trusts,  238 
Jim  Crow  cars,  19 
Judicial  review,  growth  of  doctrine  of, 

67  ff. 
Judiciary.    See   Supreme    Court    and 

Recall. 

Knights  of  Labor,  35,  249 
Ku  Klux  Klan,  i 

Labor,  number  of  wage  earners,  34; 
in  South,  48;  in  party  platforms, 
114;  and  tariff,  115;  regulation  of, 
249  ff.,  304,  308 

Labor  legislation  and  the  courts,  87  ff . ; 
Federal,  141 

Labor  movement,  249 

Labor  problem,  rise  of,  35 

Labor,  Knights  of,  35,  249 

Labor  Reformers,  35,  145  ff. 

La  Follette,  R.  M.,  candidacy  of,  344  ff . 

Laissez  faire,  and  the  Constitution, 
54  ff. ;  Gold  Democrats  defend,  192 ; 
decline  of,  304 ;  Wilson's  view  of,  377 

Liberal  Republicans,  109 

Lincoln,  on  social  equality  for  the  negro, 
21 

Lochner  v .  New  York,  87 

Louisiana,  Republican  rule  in,  over 
thrown,  i  ff. ;  disfranchisement  of 
negroes  in,  n 


Maine,  the  battleship,  207 

Manila,  naval  battle  of,  209 

Massachusetts,  primary  law  in,  356 

McKinley,  Wm.,  tariff  bill,  126;  and 
the  gold  standard,  167 ;  election  of, 
197 ;  administration  of,  199  ff. ; 
and  Spanish  war,  206  ff . ;  renomina- 
tion  in  1900,  227;  election,  228; 
campaign  funds  of,  241 

Merritt,  General,  212 

Mexico,  relations  with,  342 

Miles,  General,  212 

Mills,  tariff  bill,  126 

Minnesota  rate  case,  73  ff. 

Mississippi,  disfranchisement  of  ne 
groes  in,  10 

Mitchell,  John,  250 

Money  question.     See  Silver  question. 

Monroe  Doctrine,  199  ff. ;  Roosevelt 
on,  262 ;  280 

Montana,  41  ff. 

Morgan,  J.  P.,  231 

Mormons,  42  ff. 

Morrison,  W.  R.,  and  tariff,  126 

Mugwumps,  99 

Munn  v.  Illinois,  67  ff. 

Nebraska,  primary  law  in,  356 

Negro,  disfranchisement  of,  i  ff., 
7  ff . ;  social  discriminations  against, 
14  ff. ;  attitude  of  the  North  toward, 
19  ff. ;  problem,  22  ff. ;,  education  of, 
23  ;  in  industries,  24 ;  movement,  25 

New  Mexico,  41  ff. 

New  nationalism,  314  ff. 

North  Carolina,  disfranchisement  of 
negroes  in,  n 

North  Dakota,  41  ff. 

Northern  Pacific,  42 

Oregon,  primary  law  in,  354 

Palmer,  J.  M.,  candidate  for  President, 

192 
Panama,    canal,    sketch   of,    275    ff. ; 

revolution  in,  278 
Paper  money.     See  Greenbacks. 
Parcels  post,  327 
Parker,    Alton    B.,    nomination    and 

candidacy  of,  267  ff. 


396 


INDEX 


Payne- Aldrich  tariff,  323  ff. 

Pensions,  vetoes  by  Cleveland,  101 ; 
law  of  1890,  105 

Philippines,  military  operations  in, 
209  ff. ;  revolt  against  the  United 
States,  217;  government  of,  223; 
in  American  politics,  227;  Republi 
can  platform  of  1904  on,  265; 
Democratic  platform  of  1904  on,  267 

Platt  amendment,  221 

Poll  tax,  to  disfranchise  negroes,  9 

Populist  party,  origin  of,  149  ff. 

Populists,  and  disfranchisement  of 
negroes,  9;  on  income  tax,  138 

Porto  Rico,  conquest  of,  212;  govern 
ment  of,  222 

Postal  savings  banks,  326 

Primary,  direct,  origin  and  growth  of, 
288;  presidential,  352  ff. ;  presi 
dential,  in  1912,  358 

Progressive  party,  origin  of,  357  ff.; 
370  fL 

Progressive  Republican  League,  344 

Prohibition  party,  144  ff. 

Pullman  strike,  107 

Pure  food  law,  273 

Railways,  construction  of,  29  ff . ; 
land  grants  to,  30 ;  frauds  connected 
with,  31;  anarchy  among,  39; 
state  regulation  of,  67  ff. ;  party 
platforms  on,  113  ff. ;  regulation, 
federal,  133;  state  regulation  of, 
149;  and  stock  watering,  234; 
regulation  of,  272;  physical  valua 
tion  of,  273 ;  consolidation  of,  306 

Reagan  v.  Farmers'  Loan  and  Trust 
Company,  76  ff. 

Recall,  of  judges,  origin  of,  89 ;  origin 
and  growth  of,  287  ;  Wilson  on,  380 

Reciprocity  with  Canada,  341 

Reed,  T.  B.,  speakership,  104;  can 
didate  for  President,  165^ 

Republicans,  platform  of  1876,  2 ; 
radical  school,  2  ;  favor  new  "force" 
bill,  20;  favor  enforcing  the  Civil 
War  amendments,  21 ;  doctrines  of, 
1880-1896,  90  ff . ;  party  platforms, 
108  ff. ;  convention  of  1896,  164  ff.  ; 
convention  of  1900,  226;  convention 


of  1904,  265;  convention  of  1912, 
357  ff. 

Resumption  act,  118 

Rockefeller,  J.  D.,  37 

Roosevelt,  at  San  Juan  Hill,  211; 
nominated  for  Vice  President,  227; 
succeeds  to  the  Presidency,  228; 
administrations  of,  254  ff. ;  doctrines 
of,  255  ff. ;  characterization  of,  by 
Republicans  in  1904,  266;  Demo 
cratic  criticism  of,  in  1904,  268; 
Parker  charges  as  to  campaign 
funds  of,  269 ;  La  Follette's  criti 
cism  of,  347;  candidacy  of,  in  1912, 
349  ff. ;  new  nationalism,  350; 
breaks  with  Republicans,  360 

Rough  Riders,  211 

Rules  committee,  powers  of,  337 

Russo-Japanese  war,  Roosevelt's  part 
in  ending,  281 

Samoan  Islands,  203 

San  Juan  Hill,  211 

Santiago,  military  and  naval  opera 
tions  near,  210  ff. 

Santo  Domingo,  affair  of,  279 

Senators,  U.  S.,  direct  election  of, 
290  ff. ;  popular  election  favored  by 
Wilson,  380 

Shafter,  General,  211  f. 

Sherman,  silver  purchase  act,  124; 
anti- trust  law,  134 

Silver  question,  party  platforms  on, 
1 1 6,  162;  origin  and  development 
of,  119  ff. ;  in  campaign  of  1896, 
165  ff. 

Sixteen  to  one.    See  Silver  question. 

Slaughter-House  cases,  59  ff. 

Smyth  v.  Ames,  78 

Socialism,  opposition  to,  251;  rise 
and  growth  of,  296  f . 

Socialist  Labor  party,  147,  297 

Socialist  party,  rise  of,  298;  vote  in 
1912,  372 

Socialists,  vote  of,  increase  in  1904, 
271 

South,  Republican  rule  in,  i  ff. ;  new 
constitutions  providing  for  disfran 
chisement  of  negroes,  10  ff. ;  over- 
representation  of,  in  Congress,  20; 


INDEX 


397 


economic  advance  of,  46  ff . ;  Repub 
lican  delegates  from,  354 

South  Carolina,  Republican  rule  in, 
overthrown,  i  ff.;  disfranchisement 
of  negroes  in,  1 1 

South  Dakota,  41  ff. ;  initiative  and 
referendum  in,  284 

Southern  Pacific,  42 

Spain,  war  with,  204  ff . 

Spanish  War,  close  of,  212  ff. 

Speakership.    See  Reed  and  Cannon. 

Standard  Oil  Company,  37 

State  socialism,  252 

Steel  trust,  230 

Stock  watering,  234 

Strikes,  of  1877,  35 ;  Pullman,  107 

Suffrage,  woman,  growth  of,  294 

Sugar  trust,  239 

Supreme  Court,  declares  parts  of 
election  laws  invalid,  6  f . ;  and  dis 
franchisement  of  negroes,  13 ;  civil 
rights  cases,  15 ;  and  Fourteenth 
Amendment,  54  ff . ;  criticism  of,  86 ; 
and  income  tax,  152;  Democratic 
attack  on,  in  1896,  173  ff . ;  defense 
of,  178;  W.  J.  Bryan  on,  189;  Gold 
Democrats  defend,  193;  Taft's 
appointments,  329 

Taft,  W.  H.,  on  recall  of  judges,  287 ; 
in  Philippines  223;  nomination 
and  election  of,  317  ff . ;  administra 
tion  of,  322  ff . ;  nomination  of,  in 
1912,  362;  acceptance  speech,  364; 
Progressive  criticism  of,  345 

Tariff,  in  Cleveland's  first  administra 
tion,  103 ;  Wilson  bill,  108 ;  party 
doctrines  on,  1877-1896,  108  ff. ; 
legislation,  1877-1896,  124  ff. ; 
Republican  platform  of  1908  on, 
318;  Payne-Aldrich  act,  323  ff. ; 
board,  339  f.;  Democratic  attacks 
on  in  1911-1912,  341 


Third  term  contest,  94 

Tillman,  on  negro  suffrage,  8;  attack 
on  Cleveland  in  Democratic  conven 
tion  of  1896,  175 

Trusts,  origin  of,  37 ;  party  platforms 
on,  112;  law  against  (1890),  134; 
growth  of,  229  ff. ;  views  as  to  cause 
of,  237;  Roosevelt  on,  257  ff . ; 
Bryan  on,  in  1908,  319;  Republican 
platform  of  1912,  363;  Progressive 
party's  platform,  371 ;  Wilson's 
view  of,  375  ff. 

Unemployment,  in  1894,  I07 
Union  Labor  party,  138,  146 
Union  Pacific,  scandal  of,  31 
Unions,  Trade,  301  ff. 
United  Labor  Party,  146 
United  States  v.  Cruikshank,  7 
United  States  v.  Harris,  7 
United  States  v.  Reese,  7 
Utah,  41  ff. ;  initiative  and  referendum 
in,  285 

Vanderbilt,  Cornelius,  38 

Venezuela  affair,  199 

Vetoes,  by  Cleveland,  101  f. 

Vilas,  Senator,  in  Democratic  conven 
tion  of  1896,  179 

Virginia,  disfranchisement  of  negroes 
in,  ii ;  ex  parte,  17 

Wage  earners,  number  of,  34 

Washington,  state  of,  41  ff. 

West,  development  of,  41 

Wilson,  Wm.,  tariff  bill,  127 

Wilson,  Woodrow,  candidacy  of,  365; 

acceptance  speech,  367 ;    policies  of, 

373  ff. 

Women  in  industries,  248 
Woman  suffrage,  growth  of,   294  ff.; 

endorsed  by  Progressives,  371 
Wyoming,  41  ff. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

RENEWALS  ONLY— TEL.  NO.  642-3405 
This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


SEP  0  8  2005 


LD21A-60m-6,'69 
(J9096slO)476-A-32 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


VB  20244 


